Hmmm…… noone told me that, or the people who let me in there.

# “The West claims that more than six million Jews were killed in World War II and to compensate for that they established and support Israel. If it is true that the Jews were killed in Europe, why should Israel be established in the East, in Palestine?”

# “If you have burned the Jews, why don’t you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel. Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?”

10:05 Can inter-faith dialogue lead to peace in the Middle East?

Rabbi David Rosen, director of the American Jewish Committee’s Department for Interreligious Affairs; International co-president of the World Council of Religions for Peace; and former president of the International Council of Christians and Jews. While in New Zealand he will be meeting with Interfaith leaders, government ministers and local body representatives. He’s on his way to the Parliament of World Religions in Australia later this month.

I struggle to find anything said by Rosen to disagree with (but there are couple of quibbles), although I will listen to it again when baby is asleep

Although he brushes over things quickly, such is the style of a radio interview, he is obviously a hugely experienced communicator and fitted a lot of information into the time allotted.

Unfortunately for posters above, he relays some of the exact same points I have often expressed here and been roundly and unjustifiably attacked for it. For example, that Jews were historically well treated in Islamic countries and the origins of anti-Semitism lie in early Christianity, which consciously invented the concept, not Arabs and Muslims.

But more importantly, while recognising the essential territorial nature of the conflict, he introduces religious interaction and reconciliation as a means of arriving at a settlement. Those interested in peace will find him uplifting. Others will no doubt accuse him of naivety, ignorance, even anti-Semitism (even though he is, obviously, a Jew) – the latter because he advocates joint ownership and communal sharing of all Jerusalem by both peoples races and all three faiths who claim spiritual attachment to the land.

I urge you all to listen.

A couple of further comments.

[TimG_Oz (282) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 10:20 pm

Predictably, Luc hijacked this thread to sprout his hatred towards Israel, a place he has never been to.]

In response, the first mention of Israel in this post was @10.05am, and things went downhill from there, but my first comment was not until @2.38pm , and was on topic, Iran. And from whence is this notion that one has to go somewhere to be able to hold a view. I hold firm (very critical of the West and the Roman Catholic Church) views on the horrors of the Holocaust, 12,000,000, by the way, not 6,000,000 and I wasn’t even born then! Even journalists and historians don’t go back in time to write about their topics of interest. And as I am not religious in the least, I have not the slightest interest in visiting Israel.

Jack5, as usual, your posts spew distortions and vitriol. It’s hard to know where to start, other than you should examine the definition of racism. I fail to see how advocacy of equal rights, human and legal, equates to racism, but perhaps you can illuminate me. I won’t hold my breath for anything decipherable.

Actually, the recent protests from young Iranians give me more hope for the country than I have for, say, Saudi Arabia. America should tone down its rhetoric, and just make it easier for Iranians to buy American goods. A healthy black market in Levis and DVDs will do more to effect lasting regime change than the marine corps

Lucy, you are one of those who, by constantly crying “racism” at every opportunity, weaken perceptions of actual racism’s vicious nastiness. For real racism in its full ugliness, consider the incident suffered by Grumpy’s family and outlined by Grumpy in another thread today.

Climb back into your hole.

“admit that the actions at the time (1930’s to 1948/67) of the then western powers are indefensible”

The only power whose actions were indefensible was Nazi Germany, although you seem to be excluding them from your inference. You seem to be either denying their crimes, or admiring them.

Then later you even spout your own racist propaganda against Jews: “it’s fairly obvious that the idea was always to just drive the Palestinians out when a convenient moment arrived”

Seriously – get back on topic about Iran – go take your Jew hatred elsewhere.

Fucken hell ryan, take off those blinkers and remove your fingers from your ears.

I concede the argument. Well played.

Maybe Luc would have preferred that they went to Madagascar.
*******************

It’s ironic that the one place European Jews did go to after centuries of persecution in Europe became the least safe place for them on the planet!

I have no objection to European Jews seeking refuge, but they needed to get the permission of the (then) current inhabitants. Instead, it’s fairly obvious that the idea was always to just drive the Palestinians out when a convenient moment arrived. Problem is, they haven’t gone far and I suspect they will be back.

Coming soon to a small South Pacific, temperate climate archipelago that’s a de facto republic and keeps its cabinet ministers in a frigging bee hive.

We’ll probably go one step further by instituting sharia law for south Auckland.

Look at the links below for the treatment of Christians and Baha’i in Iran. For example: Christian services are allowed only in Armenian and Assyrian, for ethnic minorities. They are banned in Farsi, the main language of Iran.

The links:

http://www.iranpresswatch.org/post/2074

AND

http://www.persecution.org/suffering/countryinfodetail.php?countrycode=21

…but I guess today is not that day.

1. Racist bigots can still ask good questions, Tim.

2. I don’t know him, sorry.

3. I don’t believe that you state a true representation of his views, or mine, but it’s irrelevant to my point.

The best answer you could have given is that while you understand why those questions would be asked by Arabs and other Middle Eastern and Muslim nations (Iran Is Persian, of course), and admit that the actions at the time (1930’s to 1948/67) of the then western powers are indefensible, events have moved on and it’s time for all sides to seek reconciliation, equality within the recognised international human rights framework and peaceful coexistence.

Do you agree?

The remaining 2% [of the Iranian population] are non-Muslim religious minorities, including Bahá’ís, Mandeans, Hindus, Yezidis, Yarsanis, Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians. The latter three minority religions are officially recognized and protected, and have reserved seats in the Majlis (Parliament).

the answer to both of these questions is because that’s where the Jews wanted a homeland. Or more specifically where they wanted their old homeland back.

I guess the Westerners (the Romans) bust up Israel and created the diaspora. The Westerners gave it back.

The Zionists chose the location for their national state, not the Westerners. I suppose you think the British should have sacrificed 30,000 or 40,000 British squaddies to keep Palestine free of Zionists. Or do you think your peacenik mates could have achieved this with some sing-ins?

The resettlement of Israel by Jews was well under way before the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews. A brigade of Israeli Jews, most of them fairly new settlers, fought as part of the British Army in World War 2.

By the by Lucy, are you comfortable with the fact that your mate Ahmadinejad is ethnically Jewish?

Hell’t teeth, so they know all about Helen Klark in Iran, too?

I’m sure you’ll continue to support this racist in his quest to burn all the Jews again in modern times.