Posted on 11/09/2014 10:58:21 PM PST by Olog-hai
Singer-songwriter Peter Gabriel says he is not anti-Israel, but that he is “against occupation”.
Gabriel, who originally rose to fame with the band Genesis, contributed songs to a new compilation album titled “2 Unite All”, proceeds from which go to humanitarian organizations aiding Palestinian Arabs in Gaza, reports i24news.
“I am certain that Israelis and Palestinians will both benefit from a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders,” Gabriel said in a statement quoted by i24news. “We have watched Palestinians suffer for too long, especially in Gaza.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
Me neither and I’m glad.
No, you’re speaking liberal talking points and bordering on antisemitism.
There is nothing supporting the notion that we Americans ought not be in this land known as the USA. There is a plethora of historical evidence that the Jews belong in Israel.
Americans took the land from the original inhabitants, much as Muslim conquerors took it, or at least control of it, from those who lived there before them. We’ll ignore the fact that Jews had been sparse on the ground in Canaan/Israel/Palestine for 500 years when the Muslims showed up.
Muslims controlled the land continuously, with a partial and brief Crusader intermission, till 1918.
In the late 19th century, Jews began immigrating, but by 1918 were still a very small minority.
30 years later their numbers had grown to the point where they were able to win a war for control of most of the land.
That it’s “really” Jewish land is based, again absent Biblical claims, on the fact that they’d lived there most of 2000 years ago.
On what logical basis do the Jews have valid title because they’re descended from those who lived there 2000 years ago, but Americans, who conquered much of the land they now occupy less than 200 years ago, are not similarly obligated to return the land to the descendants of those who lived there less than 200 years ago?
I have no problem with Jews in control in Israel, I just think claima of valid title because their ancestors lived there 2000 years ago are untenable. If this notion is accepted, let’s look around a bit and see what other nations don’t have valid title.
No, the land was not “taken from the original inhabitants”. Historical revisionism does not hold up in the face of facts.
And you are heading into zotworthy territory, or at least total lack of credibility, by comparing the first Americans to Muslim conquerors—a comparison liberals would make. You really want to claim that American “Redskins” (a moniker they took upon themselves) are in dhimmitude, seriously? Do we extract the equivalent of a “jizyah” from them? or attempt to accuse them of blasphemy against God at every turn as an excuse to publicly execute them? They are not guiltless after all themselves, you know.
Never mind the anti-Zionist claptrap being generally zotworthy too.
You seem to have a real difficulty understanding the concept of arguing a point.
It does not consist of condemning the point as being something that should not be said, nor of threats to have the other person silenced for daring to say something with which you disagree. You know, I thought these methods were pretty much limited to leftists. I’m sorry to discover this is wrong.
My disagreement with the original post to which I replied was its assumption that the Jews have some sort of inarguable title to the land based on their ancestors having lived there, despite a general absence for almost 2000 years. Do you dispute this fact, or do you just find it irrelevant?
As I said, I have no problem with the Jews having title to their land. They acquired title by the same way almost all title to land has been acquired down the centuries, by conquest.
Canaan/Israel/Palestine has been conquered over the centuries by, among other: Canaanites, Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Jews, Persians again, Romans, Jews again (briefly a couple of times), Romans again, Byzantines, Arabs, Fatimids, various Turkic Muslim groups, Crusaders, Kurds, Mamelukes, Ottomans, British.
The theory of Jewish “ancestral right” to the land is based on all conquests after #6 above for some reason being invalid for transfer of title. We don’t do that for any other nation on earth. If we did, the Slavs would all have to pull out of the Balkans and the Turks return to Central Asia. Not to mention the European daughter societies in the Americas and Australasia.
America was not “taken from the original inhabitants”.
Really. I’m sure that will come as a surprise to the descendants of those who were here when white men arrived. They had the land and now we do, the vast majority of it anyway. How do you think that happened?
To address your second paragraph, which actually (surprise!) has some substantive points.
Never compared American settlers to Muslim conquerors. Though a comparison might not be to American advantage. We didn’t reduce the Indians to dhimmitude, we simply expelled them from their land, those we didn’t kill, and took it for ourselves. I think it’s debatable which is worse.
We don’t force our religion on them, though there were some episodes verging on that in earlier American history, and certainly the Spaniards and Portugese did exactly that in the areas they conquered.
We may not extract jizyah from Indians, but the (mis)management of the BIA over the years has resulted in an enormous net drain of Indian resources (those we left them) into white American hands.
I quite agree Indians were not guiltless in their conflicts with white Americans. In fact, I’m amused by liberals who obsess endlessly over Sand Creek and Wounded Knee, two episodes where American troops committed atrocities somewhat similar to, though much less extreme than, those routinely committed by most tribes every single time they fought us.
The Jews acquired the land of Israel by conquest, then lost it and regained it the same way. Just as Americans took our land by conquest (and a lot of dirty double-dealing).
I prefer my American history straight, without attempting to either whitewash or demonize America. Net/net, I think America has been very good for the world, and I’m proud to be an American.
If I were a Jew, I sure I’d feel the same about Israel and its history. But fake, feel-good history does nobody any good.
Arguing a point does not entail raising falsehoods and bigoted statements. That is what leftists do, as well as claim that said falsehoods are just aught which someone “disagrees with”.
Incidentally, per your “logic”, all of the “redskin” people should evacuate at once to Siberia, where they originated.
The Jews have an inarguable title to the Jewish state in the Levant. That is fact. Any other position is a lie. And you already compared the Founding Fathers to Caliphs, which invalidates you.
Ham was cursed for seeing his father naked, when the other two brothers (Shem and Japeth) covered him by backing into the tent to cover him, and Ham’s descendants were cursed for that act.
When Ishmael’s mother Hagar cried out after being put out, God said he would make him a great nation but he would always be a wild donkey of a man.
God told Abraham to obey SARAH in not allowing Ishmael to stay. Ishmael was mocking ISAAC...God said Isaac was the son of the promise, not Ishmael. So therefore Israel is the inheritance for the descendants of Isaac.
Of course the descendants of Ishmael who was the ancestor of Mohammad would say such a thing, but then like the Philistines there is nothing HOLY about obeying the real God and acting according to his promise.
And just as the second born Jacob was served by Esau for selling his birthright, the second son of Abraham received the promise that now is a bone of contention by those whose inability to work and live like normal people is stirred to jealousy. Instead they are stirred up to take what they never invested any sweat or toil into.
Moochers.
Oh come on, A Trick of the Tail sounded nothing like that.
FGTR sounded more like the Bee Gees than anything Genesis did post-Gabriel.
Some of the post-Gabriel Genesis pop stuff also had a disco-ish bent like the later Bee Gees, although closer to “new wave” or “new romantic” sound. I like the inventiveness of the prog-rock Genesis whether during the Gabriel era or after. Of course, nowadays Gabriel has shown himself to be Genesis’ equivalent of Roger Waters, with respect to Israel.
Disappointed, but not surprised, he’s always has been on the forefront of the Leftist Cause Du Jour.
COEXIST idiot.
Yeah, I’m sure he was against the Occupy astroturfers as well.
Blame without frontiers ping. Thanks Olog-hai.
Is Peter Gabriel a friend of Gruber? He thinks Americans are stupid - and all born yesterday? Shame on him...
Dead to me, as well. I had all his albums. Tossed them a few months ago. I mentioned it on my Facebook page and received replies that they weren’t even aware his kisses to Hamas.
Wow, almost a decade. Can’t imagine his thinking has changed after all the October 7 propaganda; it’s probably degraded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.