|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:08 am Post subject: |
 |
|
If you don't like the Watchtower comparison, you can always substitute the bible. Becuase many Christians do attach a very elevated status to that book, but it is still generally acknowledged that anyone in lawful possession of a copy can dispose of it as he sees fit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
Sigh  |
Um, that's a pretty lame response there SW.
It's not our fault that your "Can holy places be attacked?" is the wrong question to be asking with regard to Synagogues in Gaza.
They're not being attacked.
There's no one defending them.
They're abandoned.
And that doesn't seem to satisfy you so to further the point- the Palestinians didn't attack them- they didn't take over the synagogues and the land they sit on through force of arms- i.e. there was no battle for these synagogues. Nobody was forced to abandon them- at least, not by the Palestinians.
The Israelis withdrew of their own volition, because they decided that was to their advantage.
They could have stayed had they chosen to.
If the synagogues were so important- so holy- and there was a possibility of desecration of such holy places, they wouldn't have left, right?
The Israelis could have easily remained in Gaza for the next century (Hamas propaganda notwithstanding).
Would the withdrawal from Gaza still have occured if the WJC and Jews in Israel and around the world voiced massive and unanimous outrage at the synagogues being left undefended?
Therefore one can only conclude that the Israelis themselves (or at least the overwhelming majority) don't place the religious importance on these synagogues that you do.
Is Sharon is less of a Jew than the settlers who were removed and left holy places undefended?
Some will certainly say so, but they would be the extremists, not the majority.
Here's the article you linked to in your OP; Perhaps we all should re-read it before continuing:
| Haaretz wrote: |
Sharon says expected Palestinians to torch Gaza synagogues
By Amos Harel, Arnon Regular and Nir Hasson, Haaretz Correspondents, and Haaretz Service and Reuters
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in his first comments to reporters since Israel quit Gaza, said on Tuesday the burning of synagogues by Palestinians rushing into evacuated Jewish settlements was no less than he expected.
"I didn't think it would be any different," he said on a flight to New York, where he will address the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday.
Citing fears of desecration, the cabinet originally planned to destroy the 17 synagogues left standing in 21 Gaza settlements that were evacuated and demolished last month.
But the government backtracked on Sunday under pressure from rabbis who said the demolition of houses of worship by Jews would be the greater sin.
After Israel Defense Forces troops pulled out of the settlements on Monday, Palestinian crowds, including armed militants, rushed in, torching three synagogues.
Palestinian officials, calling the synagogues symbols of 38 years of Israeli occupation, said Israel should have destroyed them before withdrawing.
Knesset holds special debate on destruction of Gaza synagogues
The Knesset plenum interrupted its summer recess Tuesday to hold a special debate on the burning of vacated synagogues in the Gaza Strip by Palestinians.
The debate was also meant to focus on the events' effect on synagogues worldwide, the radio said.
During the debate, Shas chairman MK Eli Yishai called on Arab MKs to censure the destruction of the synagogues.
In response, MK Ahmed Tibi (Hadash-Ta'al) said he believed it was the right of Palestinians to destroy the synagogues, though not to burn them.
MK Uri Ariel (National Union) tore his shirt as a sign of mourning for the destroyed synagogues, saying one must mourn the destruction of a holy site.
"Just as Jewish religious law says that when we see the destruction of the Judean Hills we must tear our clothes, I choose to do this in the Knesset over the destruction of the synagogues," said Ariel.
The fires in Netzarim, Neveh Dekalim, Morag and Kfar Darom caused little structural damage in the fortress-like concrete and stone structures, which Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said would be destroyed.
The Prime Minister's Office said the PA must act to prevent the "acts of arson."
"Israel expects the Palestinian Authority to maintain the dignity of the structures of the synagogues," said David Baker, an official in the PMO.
As the settlers left their homes last month, they took the Torah scrolls from the synagogues, as well as prayer books and other holy items - symbolizing the end of the use of the buildings as houses of prayer.
Before dawn Monday, Palestinian gunmen climbed on the roof of the Netzarim synagogue and raised flags of militant groups. They chanted, "God is great," and "We don't want anything to remind us of the occupation."
They then set the Netzarim synagogue ablaze.
Palestinian police stood by and watched, admitting they were outnumbered by the crowds and had little motivation to stop them. An officer who refused to give his name said, "The people have the right to do what they are doing."
Israel decided it would exercise restraint in dealing with events inside Gaza. Senior defense officials described the scenes inside the abandoned synagogues as part of the labor pains that the Palestinians were expected to undergo, and officials were waiting to see how the PA and the Egyptians maintained control of the territory before deciding on further action.
Senior police officers decided Monday to raise the level of alert over possible attempts by extreme right-wingers to attack mosques in Israel in revenge. |
To answer one of your questions- yes, there was a bit of a test there to see what the Palestinians might do. But just a little one.
The knesset knew damned well what would happen and decided that it was the preferred option to either taking flak for having the synagogues destroyed by the IDF or remaining in Gaza to defend the synagogues.
I suppose if they had they might have moved the synagogues back to Israel (if Germans could move the gates of Babylon to Berlin brick by brick, and Egyptian/British/French could move the temples of Abu Simbel 30 meters up a hill, I'm sure the Israelis could have moved the synagogues had they the will).
As I have already said- political concerns, not religious ones, are the primary motivators here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SW, come on.... Bulsajo has pretty much summed it up: the syangogues are ABANDONED. They are NOT being used NOR attacked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok fair enough. But a conversation that I had with a muslim friend once was about how the muslims are supposed to consider all land on which a mosque has been built holy. He argued that the mosque cannot be destroyed or used for other purposes.
This may be just his personal opinion, but if it is not and is part of Islam, then maybe it could be argued that the same sensitivity to the holiness of other religions could be shown.
I just feel there were other ways to remove them than to dance on the top and burn them down. But to you Bulsajo, I concede your points.
But the sigh was for the notion that an abandoned synagouge and a piece of paper have the same value. Oh well, I guess maybe they do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shakuhachi
Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This is silly. If the synagogues are not being used, and are not of historical significance, then there is no reason that they should not be demolished or converted to other uses. If the Palestian government has been given ownership over these sites, then they are free to use it as they like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
But a conversation that I had with a muslim friend once was about how the muslims are supposed to consider all land on which a mosque has been built holy. He argued that the mosque cannot be destroyed or used for other purposes.
This may be just his personal opinion, but if it is not and is part of Islam, then maybe it could be argued that the same sensitivity to the holiness of other religions could be shown. |
But religions are different. Like the Detroit example I gave- bulldozing an old church might not send the Christian world into a frenzy.
And your religion indicates how you should treat your enemy as well, right? Why would Muslims be under any compunction to treat a synagogue like a mosque? This is a western perspective that just doesn't fit. It pisses me off that Muslims have fought from Mosques and will continue to do so in the future but have no problem with screaming to any Western press that will listen about how it would be a desxecration if such a place is counter-attacked.
[God help me but I think I'm starting to see things the way Bigverne does- the West is weak and our weakness is constantly used to our enemy's advantage. But I'll save that for another thread.]
Which is holy? The land? The building both?
Considering the land as holy makes sense for many places.
Why is the Wailing Wall so important?
Because of what used to be there, or to put it another way- what HAPPENED there.
The Dome of the Rock is where it is because it is the site where Muhammed flew to Heaven (Remember the arguments with Rapier about Jerusalem? This is something he just couldn't or wouldn't understand).
The place is holy, or becomes holy, and then a temple/church/mosque is built there. That is the usual way of things.
I'm no expert in Judaism but it seems to be relatively free of holy sites except for the Western Wall.
A consequence of the diaspora perhaps- a don't worship a physical site cause we could very well be driven from it like we have so often before mentality?
I'm just guessing here.
A synagogue like the ones in Gaza are are places of worship but not neccessarily holy sites in and of themselves.
At least that's my understanding- as I said I could very well be wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You don't have an issue with people telling you what religion you can practice? |
Are the EVACUATED settlers being prevented from practicing Judaism in wherever it is that they've been evacuated to? |
My point was more to do with the temples were being used by Koreans than Japanese who had come here, and were not abandoned after the end of WW2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
The Dome of the Rock is where it is because it is the site where Muhammed flew to Heaven |
I heard he donned a bat cape and goggles to perform the feat. maybe even a microlight.
| Quote: |
| (Remember the arguments with Rapier about Jerusalem? This is something he just couldn't or wouldn't understand). |
Trolling again, or just genuinely stupid?
The dome of the rock and the al aqhsa mosque were deliberate impositions on the holiest jewish site, that of the former temple of Jerusalem.To this day, traditional Jews pray three times a day for the Temple's restoration. During the centuries the Muslims controlled Palestine, two mosques were built on the site of the Jewish Temple. This was no coincidence; it is a common Islamic custom to build mosques on the sites of other people's holy places. Since any attempt to level these mosques would lead to an international Muslim holy war (jihad) against Israel, the Temple cannot be rebuilt in the foreseeable future.
For religious Jews, the Mount is where redemption will take place when the Messiah arrives. Giving up the Temple Mount would be, for religious Jews, like giving up on redemption.
The site where the 2 mosques now stand is the holiest site to jews, yet they are only allowed to approach the remnant western wall: the rest is off limits to them -in their own country.
| Quote: |
| I'm no expert in Judaism but it seems to be relatively free of holy sites except for the Western Wall. |
Jerusalem is full of Sacred jewish sites, many of them tombs or burial chambers. Despite this, Muslims deny their legitimacy in an ongoing campaign.
Palestinian Denial of Religious Freedom
http://www.gamla.org.il/english/feature/free3.htm
Whenever muslims get the chance, they desicrate Jewish/christian holy sites. Here, Muslims destroy Joseph's tomb on the west bank after israeli troops pull out. A sacred site to Christians as well as jews: Oct 2000.
Palestinians armed with pick-axes and hammers attacked the tomb, smashing the stone structure and ripping it apart, brick by brick. They burned Jewish prayer books and other religious articles and subsequently began transforming the site into a mosque.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1126578007980&p=1006953079865
During the Jordanian occupation of eastern Jerusalem from 1948 to 1967, Jews were forbidden access to their holy sites–including the Western Wall of the Temple Mount—and to the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, in use from ancient times to the present.Upon capturing eastern Jerusalem, Jordan killed or expelled its Jewish residents and desecrated and destroyed Jewish holy sites.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=576&x_context=3
What happened to Jewish Holy Sites and places of worship in lands controlled by the Arabs?
On May 28, 1948 the Arab Legion completed the capture of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, the site of numerous ancient synagogues and the Western Wall of the Temple, destroyed by the Romans in the year 70 AD. These were and remain the holiest sites in the Jewish religion.
After the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem was captured, the destruction, desecration and systematic looting of Jewish sites began and continued. 57 ancient synagogues (the oldest dated to the 13th century), libraries and centers of religious study were ransacked and 12 were totally and deliberately destroyed. Those that remained standing were defaced, used for housing of both people and animals. The city's foremost Jewish shrine, the Western Wall, became a slum. Appeals were made to the United Nations and in the international community to declare the Old City to be an 'open city' and stop this destruction, but there was no response. This condition continued until Jordan lost control of Jerusalem in June 1967.
On the Mount of Olives, the Jordanian Arabs removed 38,000 tombstones from the ancient cemetery and used them as paving stones for roads and as construction material in Jordanian Army camps, including use as latrines. When the area was recaptured by Israel in 1967, graves were found open with the bones scattered. Parts of the cemetery were converted into parking lots, a filling station, and an asphalt road was built to cut through it. The Intercontinental Hotel was built at the top of the cemetery. Sadar Khalil, appointed by the Jordanian government as the official caretaker of the cemetery, built his home on the grounds using the stones robbed from graves. In 1967, the press published extensive photos documenting that Jewish gravestones were found in Jordanian Army camps, such as El Azariya, as well as in Palestinian walkways, steps, bathrooms, and pavement.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_holysites.php
| Quote: |
| At least that's my understanding- as I said I could very well be wrong. |
Change that to "definitely".
So, the answer is threefold;
1) Holy sites are indeed attackable. Jewish holy sites have continuously been destroyed throughout history by Muslims, whereupon they have cemented them over by constructing mosques on top of them.
2)Muslim holy sites are protected and seen as non-attackable by the world community.
3) jewish sites are regarded as insignificant, their destruction is ignored or under-reported. Removing the Dome of the rock and rebuilding the original temple in jerusalem is a just cause without question. The temple existed there 1600 years before Muslims destroyed it and positioned (yet another) mosque on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| They (synagogues) are NOT being used NOR attacked. |
-and what planet do you live on.. have you read the news lately?
| Quote: |
| Four of 19 empty settlement synagogues were set ablaze by celebrating Palestinians on Monday morning |
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=12831
However its hardly surprising the Palestinian authority is already failing to control "hamastan".
"looters continued to run amok in several places, targeting large greenhouses which, it had been hoped, would provide an economic boost for local residents once returned to production."
Muslim sites are respected and protected in israel. Jewish sites are destroyed or converted to mosques wherever they occur(ed) in palestine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shakuhachi wrote: |
| This is silly. If the synagogues are not being used, and are not of historical significance, then there is no reason that they should not be demolished or converted to other uses. If the Palestinian government has been given ownership over these sites, then they are free to use it as they like. |
Exactly.
A nice summary that ignores all the irrelevancies.
full stop. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
shakuhachi wrote:
This is silly. If the synagogues are not being used, and are not of historical significance, then there is no reason that they should not be demolished or converted to other uses. If the Palestinian government has been given ownership over these sites, then they are free to use it as they
|
How you remove something can show as much about your society as why you remove something. Do they have the right to remove them, no question they do. Do they need to burn them down as a sign of domination and war against Jewish religious symbols, maybe not.
Is the palestinian society going to evolve to a more peaceful society in the region or will the violence continue? Will they see every thing as a battle against Israel or evolve? These can be seen or viewed through their actions.[/u] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
shakuhachi wrote:
This is silly. If the synagogues are not being used, and are not of historical significance, then there is no reason that they should not be demolished or converted to other uses. If the Palestinian government has been given ownership over these sites, then they are free to use it as they
|
Then would you say Israelis are free to remove Muslim sites in israel? The Israeli govt has ownership of them. whats more, their sites and claim to them pre-dates Islamic sites by many hundreds of years. How would the world community react if jews were to bulldoze, or desecrate amosque in Israel? there would be outrage. Yet palestinians freely trash jewish sites in the most extreme way, ad the world shrugs its shoulders. A double standard against jews has existed for millenia apparently.
| Quote: |
How you remove something can show as much about your society as why you remove something. Do they have the right to remove them, no question they do. Do they need to burn them down as a sign of domination and war against Jewish religious symbols, maybe not.
Is the palestinian society going to evolve to a more peaceful society in the region or will the violence continue? Will they see every thing as a battle against Israel or evolve? These can be seen or viewed through their actions.[/u] |
Well thats it- already Hamastan has descended into a whirlwind of chaos, with little or no law and order. There is no reason to think they are capable of ruling themselves in a proper fashion.
looking at the models of mature Islamic society found in countries like Saudi, we still see the same old pattern of disrespect for human rights etc.
Because islam creates a backward, destructive society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
How you remove something can show as much about your society as why you remove something. Do they have the right to remove them, no question they do. Do they need to burn them down as a sign of domination and war against Jewish religious symbols, maybe not.
Is the palestinian society going to evolve to a more peaceful society in the region or will the violence continue? Will they see every thing as a battle against Israel or evolve? These can be seen or viewed through their actions.[/u] |
Sign of domination? Uh not really. I don't think the Palestinians are that arrogant or stupid to think they dominate anything, let alone the Israelis.
Honestly.. What do you think happened to the statues of George III when the Yanks won the revolutionary war? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"domination" may be the wrong word. Control may be better, it was the way it seems to get done in the region that bothers me. I wonder what lessons are being learnt and how much more needs to be taught for real non violent social change to occur.
Just consider these 2 ways of removing a synagouge, 1 is hypothetical. Under Government control, observed by non partisan members, with the statment to the neighbors that while leaving an unusable building was generous (we don't want no jews in our country), we will remove it, doing so, by bulldozer. VS A movement of people into an area, a flying of non Government flags, a dancing on the roofs while shouting Jeruselem and the West Bank next, finished off with a overblown bonfire of hated buildings. (Tounge in Cheek) I just feel that the way that it was done is overlooked and not discussed vs the removal. The removal I understand, the way you do it and what signal you want to send seems to me to be more important than the removal.
| Quote: |
| Honestly.. What do you think happened to the statues of George III when the Yanks won the revolutionary war? |
I would hope that humanity has changed in the last 300 yrs, but I guess not if these actions are still supported today. A difference to consider, is one nation lived a few thousand miles away, the other lives a few feet away. Both parties really need to see how their actions enflame each other and live in peace, just so my Grandchildren will not have to argue over the same issue in another 50 yrs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Muslims conquer Israel>>>destroy Jewish temple, put a mosque on top of it.
Jews conquer israel>>> leave the dome of the rock intact, and allow Muslims to worship there freely.
Can anyone see a difference here? hmm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
