Middle East / Ahimsa

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/15/00 2:44:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

aoclery writes:

 

<<

 

The Israeli occupation is intrinsically evil because it interferes

with the free will of the Palestinians.

 

It is interesting that a people who were brutalised by the nazis

would not learn from it, but carry it on themeselves, somewhat like

an abusive father. I believe many holocaust survivor abused their

families, monkey see, monkey do.

>>

 

l basically agree with Bruce's response and feel that this and other

posts by you, Tony, are distorting the facts of the lsraeli conflict with the

Palestinians. The lsraelis are in fact much more sympathetic than the

British. Unlike the British, who were in the business of empire building, the

lsraelis took and occupied territory because they were surrounded by hostile

neighbors on all sides who were openly committed to their destruction from

the very inception of the state of lsrael.

To be sure,

there have been great wrongs committed by lsrael in this long conflict. Altho

l'm Jewish, l have been a harsh critic of some of the prior regimes. But

Barak staked his political survival on making peace and went much further

than l ever thought an lsraeli govt would in trying to resolve this, only to

be met by what appears to be never ending, fanatical hatred on the part of a

great many Palestinians. That is why President Clinton, who has acted as an

honest peace broker, has been screaming at Arafat on the phone in recent

weeks: because Arafat has been unwilling to confront his own fanatical

elements in trying to finally attain peace.

 

l don't blame the Palestinians

for resenting their occupiers, but this is a moderate lsraeli govt that has

made a good faith effort in trying to end the occupation. The present

violence isn't simply a matter of armed troops firing at young boys throwing

stones. lnterspersed with those young boys are Palestinian snipers with guns.

 

The young

Palestinian boy who was killed while crouched behind his father was caught in

a crossfire between lsraeli soldiers and Palestinian snipers. But of course,

as the occupier with far superior firepower, the lsraelis are going to

inflict most of the casualties, which is exactly what Arafat wants. What l

find incredible is that Palestinian mothers are sending their young sons out

to confront lsraeli soldiers. l've always sympathized with the Palestinians,

but l can't imagine a level of hatred that would make a mother want to risk

the life of her 12 yr old son. The hatred may be justified in some respects,

but there can't be peace in the middle east so long as it exists at this

level among Palestinians.

l've

known many holocaust survivors and children of holcaust survivors. l don't

know of a single case of the type of abuse to which you refer.

 

jerry

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 09:58:45 Harsha wrote:

>I join you in prayers that there will be a time when there is peace for

>humanity and people will treat each other of different religions and races

>and background as their very own. All of us are light onto ourselves. If our

>light burns pure and bright, it helps others to see and become light unto

>themselves. Just like one candle lights another, we are linked in that

>universal and divine chain, that goes back to the ancient sages who held

>compassion and kindness to be the highest principle. It is the fragrance of

>the purest teachings of nonviolence that has the gentle power to light up

>all the beautiful candles of humanity simultaneously. It is a gift we give

>to ourselves.

 

Harsha,

 

In a former post, I remember you mentioned that there is a second part of the

principle of non-harming, and that is, if I remember it correctly, the principle

of seeing the neutral ground in any conflict, that both parties may be correct

to some extent.

 

I find this principle, and of course, also the first principle, very

interesting.

With many other things, these principles are easy to understand but very

difficult to carry out in practice.

 

I wonder if you would explain the principles of ahimsa, both the main and the

"second" principle more closely for us ?

 

 

Love,

 

Amanda.

 

 

 

 

Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/15/2000 7:28:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

GCWein1111 writes:

 

<< The hatred may be justified in some respects,

but there can't be peace in the middle east so long as it exists at this

level among Palestinians. >>

 

There is no justification, period. Anyone who picks up the gun is

wrong. Period... It doesn't matter which side or why or how old or

how young, the percentages of who has died are not encouraging, but

really in the end it doesn't matter.

 

All that matters is to begin communicating

begin sharing, begin understanding that on one earth borders are false

constructs, and as GATT recently shows, may be totally unnecessary and

artificial and my guess is that in one or two thousand years they will look

back at our primitive and inhumane behavior, I do sincerely hope so.

 

Because I think it is really difficult to absorb the level of inhumanity, the

greed, the selfishness, and the lack of love we must endure just to live here.

 

My son is psychic and he absorbs these energies almost physically in his

body, and when this kind of energy breaks out, he bounces literally off the

walls, and cries in his sleep.

 

Who cares who is right and who is wrong? When children die, we are all

wrong. We are wrong if we do not stand for love. Love is an active verb,

platitudes are worthless if we do nothing and stand and watch helplessly.

Many a sage would agree.

 

LOVE, please dear God, let us understand that greed is antithetical to love.

In this country, with our tax dollars, we build more weapons than every other

country on earth combined. There is no justification. And it is pure greed

that drives this.

 

In sadness and horror at the level of pain we ask our children to inherit, bo

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/15/2000 9:01:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

dorf01 writes:

 

<<

If everyone on the list wrote 1 letter, to 1 congressperson... someone

might actually *read* it, and know how we feel.

 

maitri,

 

--janpa digging for a quill and ink, wondering why it doesn't stick to the

monitor . >>

 

I did that yesterday, three emails: to the White House, the President, the

Vice President, the First Lady. I agree. Thank you Janpa

[Guest guest]

On 10/15/00 at 8:18 PM mumble cat wrote:

 

ºOn Sun, 15 Oct 2000 09:58:45 Harsha wrote:

º

º>I join you in prayers that there will be a time when there is peace for

º>humanity and people will treat each other of different religions and races

º>and background as their very own. All of us are light onto ourselves. If our

º>light burns pure and bright, it helps others to see and become light unto

º>themselves. Just like one candle lights another, we are linked in that

º>universal and divine chain, that goes back to the ancient sages who held

º>compassion and kindness to be the highest principle. It is the fragrance of

º>the purest teachings of nonviolence that has the gentle power to light up

º>all the beautiful candles of humanity simultaneously. It is a gift we give

º>to ourselves.

º

ºHarsha,

º

ºIn a former post, I remember you mentioned that there is a second part of the

principle of non-harming, and that is, if I remember it correctly, the principle

of seeing the neutral ground in any conflict, that both parties may be correct

to some extent.

 

j: Just commenting:

>From their perspective, both parties are right but as usual, such a perspective

is selfish - it is based on the idea "I am the body and the world is real".

Together with follies like "the subjugation of nature by man" that unleashes a

chain of causality, based on fear (losing/damaging the body or its possession),

offense, defense and retaliation. The only "way out" is an unselfish mediator or

better still, meditation classes at a very young age

º

ºI find this principle, and of course, also the first principle, very

interesting.

ºWith many other things, these principles are easy to understand but very

difficult to carry out in practice.

 

j: When non-harming is impossible, what remains is "harming as little as

possible". But there is also the fact that suffering can be a great teacher -

then, what looks like harming from one perspective, will turn out to be a

blessing from another.

º

ºI wonder if you would explain the principles of ahimsa, both the main and the

"second" principle more closely for us ?

º

º

ºLove,

º

ºAmanda.

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

 

There is karma to be played out and of course how we react to it.

However in situation like pre independence India and present day

Israel/Palestine, there is usually a stronger perpetrator, of

violence. In these cases the perpetrators were the British and the

Israelis respectively.

 

There is neutral ground but it is hard to find for tanks and rockets.

At this level we are at the dualities and life has to be dealt with.

 

Ahimsa doesn't mean no action, it also includes resisting evil.

Whether it be resisting the Israeli occupation or the killing of the

two Israeli soldiers.

 

The Israeli occupation is intrinsically evil because it interferes

with the free will of the Palestinians.

 

It is interesting that a people who were brutalised by the nazis

would not learn from it, but carry it on themeselves, somewhat like

an abusive father. I believe many holocaust survivor abused their

families, monkey see, monkey do.

 

I am not saying all Jews are like this, but the dominant ones seem to

be.

 

Om Namah Sivaya Tony.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- In , "mumble cat" <mumblecat@a...> wrote:

>

>

> On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 09:58:45 Harsha wrote:

>

> >I join you in prayers that there will be a time when there is

peace for

> >humanity and people will treat each other of different religions

and races

> >and background as their very own. All of us are light onto

ourselves. If our

> >light burns pure and bright, it helps others to see and become

light unto

> >themselves. Just like one candle lights another, we are linked in

that

> >universal and divine chain, that goes back to the ancient sages

who held

> >compassion and kindness to be the highest principle. It is the

fragrance of

> >the purest teachings of nonviolence that has the gentle power to

light up

> >all the beautiful candles of humanity simultaneously. It is a gift

we give

> >to ourselves.

>

> Harsha,

>

> In a former post, I remember you mentioned that there is a second

part of the principle of non-harming, and that is, if I remember it

correctly, the principle of seeing the neutral ground in any

conflict, that both parties may be correct to some extent.

>

> I find this principle, and of course, also the first principle,

very interesting.

> With many other things, these principles are easy to understand but

very difficult to carry out in practice.

>

> I wonder if you would explain the principles of ahimsa, both the

main and the "second" principle more closely for us ?

>

>

> Love,

>

> Amanda.

>

>

>

>

> Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:30:36 -0000 "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery >

writes:> Namaste All,> > There is karma to be played out and of

course how we react to it. > However in situation like pre

independence India and present day > Israel/Palestine, there is

usually a stronger perpetrator, of > violence. In these cases the

perpetrators were the British and the > Israelis respectively.

There is a major difference

-- in India, Gandhi insisted

on non-violence, thus when

the British responded

violently the proponents of

Indian independence held

the moral high ground. The

Arabs of Palestine have no

Gandhi, they throw rocks at

well-armed police and buy

headlines and international

sympathy with their own

children's blood. They

suffer more because they are

not as not as effective at

violence as their opponents,

but they are every bit as

violent. This makes the

situation both sadder and

more intractable than that

of 1940s India.> > There is neutral ground but it is hard to find for

tanks and > rockets. > At this level we are at the dualities and life

has to be dealt > with.> > Ahimsa doesn't mean no action, it also

includes resisting evil. > Whether it be resisting the Israeli

occupation or the killing of the > two Israeli soldiers.

Yes, but as Gandhi demonstrated

such resistence must take a

peaceful form or one becomes

what one opposes!> > The Israeli occupation is intrinsically evil

because it interferes > with the free will of the Palestinians.

The presence of a powerful

Jewish and culturally Western

nation in the midst of what

has been an Arab and

mostly Islamic area of the

world for many centuries is

intrinsically problematic,

much like the presence of a

prosperous group of

Protestants holding economic

and political sway in the

north of relatively poor

and overwhelmingly Catholic

Ireland. The results are

also painfully similar and

solutions equally elusive.> > It is interesting that a people who were

brutalised by the nazis > would not learn from it, but carry it on

themeselves, somewhat like > an abusive father.

The surviving Jews learned

plenty -- unfortunately it

was imo the wrong lesson.

I would state it as "To

avoid being stomped by the

jackboot one must wear

jackboots." As a result,

Israel has victory after

victory, but never peace!

> I believe many holocaust survivor abused their > families, monkey see, monkey do.

Tony, do have any basis for

such a contention? I know

hundreds of Jewish people,

including some survivors,

and have never heard of a

single incident of family

abuse among them.> > I am not saying all Jews are like this,

Like what, abusers?

> but the dominant ones seem > to be.

The "dominant ones" where

and in what sense?

> [snip]

http://come.to/realizationhttp://www.atman.net/realizationhttp://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htmhttp://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm

[Guest guest]

Last year, or the year before, when Lama Rinchin was here my & my brother

Andy asked him what to do about world peace, the things that tear you up

inside from the heart outward. He told me to write letters (which i

confess i have not been that good about doing unless its email). He also

gave us a prayer that HH Dudjom Rinpoche wrote.

 

In general, it is a entreat to remember one's teacher/guru all the time,

not just when one is in trouble. It also asks for blessings so that the

world is without hunger, disease, war.

 

Looking at the world, i feel hard to find "something to do to fix it".

This makes you look at yourself hard, trying to fix the world. Do we want

to fix it for ourselves, so we don't have to see the pain, or do we want

to fix it for the one in pain?

 

Sometimes its simple things, like doing my cancer friend's laundry, that

seem to help more than anything. Perhaps we should write letters, too, to

congress and the president, or governing body of other countries to

support a real peace solution in the Middle east(also Tibet while your at

it )

 

If everyone on the list wrote 1 letter, to 1 congressperson... someone

might actually *read* it, and know how we feel.

 

maitri,

 

--janpa digging for a quill and ink, wondering why it doesn't stick to the

monitor .

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

 

Most reponses to me are from Americans so I allow for the usual

uninformed bias. I am

somewhat familiar to this type of situation my mother and sister

still live Dundalk Ireland and my family came from Armagh on one

side.

 

Israelis are empire building what else is stealing land and occupying

someone else's country??????????In fact the British response in

India, Amritsar excepted, was much more measured and less violent

than the Israeli violence, there were imprisonments and executions as

well of course, but mostly bamboo sticks from the local police. I'm

Irish!!!The British at the time were in reverse gear re the Empire,

since Ireland in 1922, and the Statutes of Westminster 1930s as

amended.

 

It is too late to discuss the somewhat spurious historical claim to

Israel itself, as the Palestinians/Canaanites predate the minimul

influx of Hebrews, but a withdrawal to pre 1967 would be realistic.

When is a country based on what religion one is? For probably half

the Jews in Israel are not of full Hebrew origin, Sephardics

excluded. Clinton is not his own man and never was!!He belongs to the

lobbyists as do all US politicians.

 

There is a psychological study somewhere on holocaust survivors,

there was a documentary on T.V. interiewing abusers and abused.

 

I will probably be declared anti-Semitic for saying what I have, that

is unfortunate, but I can back up what I say with some very strong

archeological hypotheses, some Israeli even. For example the Temple

Mount of Solomon was built some 400 years before the supposed time of

Solomon, who cannot be found anywhere but in the Bible anyway. He may

have been an Egytian even. For the description of Solomon's temple in

the Bible is a description of Amenhotep III's, at Thebes. However we

have to deal with facts on the ground and prevent the Palestinian

natives losing more land to transplanted settlements. That way with

the internationalisation of Jerusalem, we may have peace.

 

As a last word my geat-grandfather was an Irish Jew, that grants me

no right to Palestine.

 

In the end result, Ahimsa is total peace or Brahman, all else is an

attempt.

 

Om Namah Sivaya Tony.

 

 

, GCWein1111@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 10/15/00 2:44:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> aoclery writes:

>

> <<

>

> The Israeli occupation is intrinsically evil because it interferes

> with the free will of the Palestinians.

>

> It is interesting that a people who were brutalised by the nazis

> would not learn from it, but carry it on themeselves, somewhat

like

> an abusive father. I believe many holocaust survivor abused their

> families, monkey see, monkey do.

> >>

>

> l basically agree with Bruce's response and feel that this and

other

> posts by you, Tony, are distorting the facts of the lsraeli

conflict with the

> Palestinians. The lsraelis are in fact much more sympathetic than

the

> British. Unlike the British, who were in the business of empire

building, the

> lsraelis took and occupied territory because they were surrounded

by hostile

> neighbors on all sides who were openly committed to their

destruction from

> the very inception of the state of

lsrael.

> To

be sure,

> there have been great wrongs committed by lsrael in this long

conflict. Altho

> l'm Jewish, l have been a harsh critic of some of the prior

regimes. But

> Barak staked his political survival on making peace and went much

further

> than l ever thought an lsraeli govt would in trying to resolve

this, only to

> be met by what appears to be never ending, fanatical hatred on the

part of a

> great many Palestinians. That is why President Clinton, who has

acted as an

> honest peace broker, has been screaming at Arafat on the phone in

recent

> weeks: because Arafat has been unwilling to confront his own

fanatical

> elements in trying to finally attain

peace.

>

> l don't blame the

Palestinians

> for resenting their occupiers, but this is a moderate lsraeli govt

that has

> made a good faith effort in trying to end the occupation. The

present

> violence isn't simply a matter of armed troops firing at young

boys throwing

> stones. lnterspersed with those young boys are Palestinian snipers

with guns.

>

>

The young

> Palestinian boy who was killed while crouched behind his father was

caught in

> a crossfire between lsraeli soldiers and Palestinian snipers. But

of course,

> as the occupier with far superior firepower, the lsraelis are going

to

> inflict most of the casualties, which is exactly what Arafat wants.

What l

> find incredible is that Palestinian mothers are sending their young

sons out

> to confront lsraeli soldiers. l've always sympathized with the

Palestinians,

> but l can't imagine a level of hatred that would make a mother want

to risk

> the life of her 12 yr old son. The hatred may be justified in some

respects,

> but there can't be peace in the middle east so long as it exists

at this

> level among

Palestinians.

>

l've

> known many holocaust survivors and children of holcaust survivors.

l don't

> know of a single case of the type of abuse to which you

refer.

>

> jerry

[Guest guest]

-

Tony O'Clery <aoclery

 

Sunday, October 15, 2000 5:30 PM

Re: Middle East / Ahimsa

 

 

Namaste All,

 

There is karma to be played out and of course how we react to it.

However in situation like pre independence India and present day

Israel/Palestine, there is usually a stronger perpetrator, of

violence. In these cases the perpetrators were the British and the

Israelis respectively.

 

#####

Dear Tony,

 

You can't blame the British for that Abraham, and then Moses out of Egypt stuff.

So

I assume you are referring to the British decision (believe it or not, made

before the holocaust), to return some of Israel's original homeland to the

Israelis? But then that being dispersed all over Europe turns out not to have

worked out so well either, so the British kindly pull out and let the Israelis

fight the Arabs all by themselves then. I know that's just what I would feel

like doing after getting out of a concentration camp, is fight to survive again

right away. You may be right, on second thought, maybe someplace like Australia

would have been less problematic in the long run. Austalians are a pretty good

natured lot, maybe they would all have moved out, and given up some area there,

and the British still had some pull back then too. After all, Israel had been

effectively kicked out for about 2,000 years of exile already..you'd think some

people would get a message after all that time wouldn't you? How many occupiers

of that land had tried to tell them? That birthplace of Israel stuff and the

1,000 years of history that made it their homeland was effectively ended by the

Greeks and the Romans way before Jesus came along. Oh yeah, so now we have

another whole set of "holy sites" for another religion, geesh.

 

You said:

"There is neutral ground but it is hard to find...."

 

Boy, ain't that the truth??

 

Love,

Gloria

[Guest guest]

Rainbolily wrote:

> My son is psychic and he absorbs these energies almost physically in his

> body, and when this kind of energy breaks out, he bounces literally off the

> walls, and cries in his sleep.

>

 

My deepest sympathy to your son. Ben there. How old is he?

 

Mace

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/15/2000 10:07:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

mmealer writes:

 

<<

My deepest sympathy to your son. Ben there. How old is he?

 

Mace

>>

Nicolas has just turned eight and thank you Mace for your beautiful

stories, loved the Blue Bonnet flowers, exceptionally sweet.

 

Love and Light, bo

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/15/00 6:09:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

aoclery writes:

 

<<

Most reponses to me are from Americans so I allow for the usual

uninformed bias.

 

Ha ha ha ... Thanx for that, Tony. Of course, l know you could never be

uninformed or biased.

 

 

Israelis are empire building what else is stealing land and occupying

someone else's country??????????In fact the British response in

India, Amritsar excepted, was much more measured and less violent

than the Israeli violence,

 

The land was taken in the 1967 war in which lsrael had to defend

itself against all of its neighbors. Keep in mind that at the time of that

war, as others which preceded it, lsrael occupied NO LAND. Yet, it was

targeted for destruction by its neighbors. Thus, lsrael's reluctance to

return the land right away was surely understandable on grounds of security

and was hardly like the British empire building with lands far from its

borders.

 

lt's true that many in lsrael, such as Menachem Begin, lusted for these lands

for other reasons as well. And there's no question that this expressed desire

to stretch the borders of lsrael, along with the policy of settlement of

these territories by Jews, were tremendous irritants and hindrances to peace.

lt's also probably true that lsrael's responses to violence have often been

excessive. But the situation in the middle east is so unlike the British in

lndia, that l feel it's unfair to compare them.

As l said, l've been a

harsh critic of lsrael in the past. l used to get calls all the time to be a

"mensch" and support lsrael financially, but l always refused, pointedly

telling all callers l was doing so out of protest of lsrael's treatment of

the Palestinians. l also refused to travel to lsrael for this same reason.

l've always sympathized with the Palestinians. But l never denied lsrael's

legitimate security concerns as a tiny country surrounded by hostile

neighbors, none of which had a democratic form of government.

 

The formula of giving up land for peace

has been lsrael's objective for a long time. This is hardly the policy of a

country bent on empire building. lts overriding objective is clearly

security, not territory. lsrael has made peace with every country which has

shown a willingness to do so -- with Egypt, with Jordan and was on track to

do so with Syria before Assad died -- by giving up conquered territories.

 

 

It is too late to discuss the somewhat spurious historical claim to

Israel itself,

 

On this you are right: there is no point in discussing the over 2000

yr old history for the purpose of this conflict. Both sides have always cited

history to justify their positions. Discussions of historical claims will not

advance the cause of peace. lt is irrelevant how lsraelis and Palestinians

got here.One can argue that modern lsrael is a mistake and shouldn't even

exist -- l've often felt that way -- but largely because of 2000 yrs of

relentless persecution culminating in the holocaust, it does exist. That's

where we are.

 

The question for some time has been, who is willing to risk, to sacrifice

to make peace. The lsraelis have shown, in spite of their considerable sins,

that they are willing to try. After bitching about lsrael's policies for most

of the last 30 years, in recent times l've been more concerned about whether

the Palestinians can lay aside their hatred in order to make any compromises

for peace. The Barak government has made an all out, good faith effort, only

to find Arafat unwilling to reciprocate. No offer of concessions from lsrael

seems to have any effect on Palestinian hatred. That is what l find alarming.

 

 

Clinton is not his

own man and never was!!He belongs to the

lobbyists as do all US politicians.

 

The lsrael lobby is powerful in the US, no question, but Arab oil is

even more important, as you well know. The US relationship with lsrael is

counter-balanced by the need to promote genuine peace and placate Arab

nations in order not to disrupt oil supplies. Clinton may not be his own man,

but he badly wants peace for obvious reasons, as have his predecessors, and

he knows that all sides have to see him as even handed. That's why he's

succeeded as well as he has.

>>

jerry

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/16/00 10:07:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

aoclery writes:

 

<<

Namaste Gerry,

 

I think if Israel didn't build settlements on occupied land,

claiming historical or really dubious Biblical rights--the

Palestinians may be more convinced. Actions speak louder than words.

 

Having Sharon, who is a war criminal responsibe for the massacres in

the Lebanese refugee camps, is like having Heydrich in the cabinet.

It

is easy to see the frustration of the Palestinians. Some have deeds

to

land in Israel proper, from which they were chased. They should be

financially reimbursed for these in todays funds.

>>

 

l don't have any problem with what you're saying here, Tony. As l said, l

DO sympathize with the Palestinians in many of their gripes. From what l'd

heard, l thought Barak was offering to give pretty close to all of the

territory in question back (the figure l heard was 92% of it) along with a

plan for Jerusalem that would try to accomodate the interests of both sides.

ls this wrong?

 

jerry

[Guest guest]

Namaste Gerry,

 

I think if Israel didn't build settlements on occupied land,

claiming historical or really dubious Biblical rights--the

Palestinians may be more convinced. Actions speak louder than words.

 

Having Sharon, who is a war criminal responsibe for the massacres in

the Lebanese refugee camps, is like having Heydrich in the cabinet.

It

is easy to see the frustration of the Palestinians. Some have deeds

to

land in Israel proper, from which they were chased. They should be

financially reimbursed for these in todays funds.

 

It is unfortunate that Balfour, Rothchilds, and the Zionists decided

not only to buy land but to form a state, in Palestine in the first

place. However the clock cannot be turned back but it can be stopped

from happening in the West Bank.

 

It is my guess that there never was a Solomon or David empire, dwd

translates to toth in Egyptian.

 

As Sigmund Freud guessed, Mosis,( I personally have also believed

this), which means rightful heir in Egyptian, was probably the

pharoah

Akenaten, the monotheist, who had to leave Egypt with his followers.

Hebrew people lived in Spain,(Sephar) Ethiopia, Ireland, India, and

never ever came from Palestine. If there was a Hebrew kingdom it was

probably in what we call Arabia.

 

So the situation in Israel is somewhat analogous to European

settlement in N America and the displacement of the natives.

 

Again I will say Judaism is a religion, some are Hebrew. Most

Ashkenazim are mingled with Europeans and in the case of the Khazars,

were actually Turkic. Http://www.khazaria.com Many descendents are

in Beloruss and Ukraine, or were. The recent immigration of Russians

is highly doubtful they are really hebrew at all, or even Jewish!

 

That is why it has been spurious to use the Bible as a history for

claiming land, even in the days of Jesus there were many races and

religions living in Palestine/Falastin/Philistine.

 

My solution is; as the Israelis are the orignal interlopers and

aggressor they should withdraw completely to pre 1967, close all

settlements on the West Bank, give complete independence to

Palestine,

internationalise Jerusalem, and pay reparations to the Palestinians

who lost land in Israel proper and cannot go back home.

 

That may remove the impediment to peace and convince the Palestinians

of the good word of the Israelis.

 

Om Namah Sivaya Tony.

 

 

 

 

 

, GCWein1111@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 10/15/00 6:09:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> aoclery writes:

>

> <<

> Most reponses to me are from Americans so I allow for the usual

> uninformed bias.

>

> Ha ha ha ... Thanx for that, Tony. Of course, l know you could

never be

> uninformed or biased.

>

>

> Israelis are empire building what else is stealing land and

occupying

> someone else's country??????????In fact the British response in

> India, Amritsar excepted, was much more measured and less violent

> than the Israeli violence,

>

> The land was taken in the 1967 war in which lsrael had to

defend

> itself against all of its neighbors. Keep in mind that at the time

of that

> war, as others which preceded it, lsrael occupied NO LAND. Yet, it

was

> targeted for destruction by its neighbors. Thus, lsrael's

reluctance

to

> return the land right away was surely understandable on grounds of

security

> and was hardly like the British empire building with lands far from

its

> borders.

>

> lt's true that many in lsrael, such as Menachem Begin, lusted for

these lands

> for other reasons as well. And there's no question that this

expressed desire

> to stretch the borders of lsrael, along with the policy of

settlement of

> these territories by Jews, were tremendous irritants and hindrances

to peace.

> lt's also probably true that lsrael's responses to violence have

often been

> excessive. But the situation in the middle east is so unlike the

British in

> lndia, that l feel it's unfair to compare them.

> As l said, l've

been a

> harsh critic of lsrael in the past. l used to get calls all the

time

to be a

> "mensch" and support lsrael financially, but l always refused,

pointedly

> telling all callers l was doing so out of protest of lsrael's

treatment of

> the Palestinians. l also refused to travel to lsrael for this same

reason.

> l've always sympathized with the Palestinians. But l never denied

lsrael's

> legitimate security concerns as a tiny country surrounded by

hostile

> neighbors, none of which had a democratic form of government.

>

> The formula of giving up land

for peace

> has been lsrael's objective for a long time. This is hardly the

policy of a

> country bent on empire building. lts overriding objective is

clearly

> security, not territory. lsrael has made peace with every country

which has

> shown a willingness to do so -- with Egypt, with Jordan and was on

track to

> do so with Syria before Assad died -- by giving up conquered

territories.

>

>

> It is too late to discuss the somewhat spurious historical claim

to

> Israel itself,

>

> On this you are right: there is no point in discussing the

over 2000

> yr old history for the purpose of this conflict. Both sides have

always cited

> history to justify their positions. Discussions of historical

claims

will not

> advance the cause of peace. lt is irrelevant how lsraelis and

Palestinians

> got here.One can argue that modern lsrael is a mistake and

shouldn't

even

> exist -- l've often felt that way -- but largely because of 2000

yrs

of

> relentless persecution culminating in the holocaust, it does exist.

That's

> where we are.

>

> The question for some time has been, who is willing to risk, to

sacrifice

> to make peace. The lsraelis have shown, in spite of their

considerable sins,

> that they are willing to try. After bitching about lsrael's

policies

for most

> of the last 30 years, in recent times l've been more concerned

about

whether

> the Palestinians can lay aside their hatred in order to make any

compromises

> for peace. The Barak government has made an all out, good faith

effort, only

> to find Arafat unwilling to reciprocate. No offer of concessions

from lsrael

> seems to have any effect on Palestinian hatred. That is what l find

alarming.

>

>

> Clinton is

not his

> own man and never was!!He belongs to the

> lobbyists as do all US politicians.

>

> The lsrael lobby is powerful in the US, no question, but

Arab oil is

> even more important, as you well know. The US relationship with

lsrael is

> counter-balanced by the need to promote genuine peace and placate

Arab

> nations in order not to disrupt oil supplies. Clinton may not be

his

own man,

> but he badly wants peace for obvious reasons, as have his

predecessors, and

> he knows that all sides have to see him as even handed. That's why

he's

> succeeded as well as he has.

> >>

> jerry

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:05:27 -0000 "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery >

writes:> Namaste Gerry,> > I think if Israel didn't build settlements

on occupied land, > claiming historical or really dubious Biblical

rights--the > Palestinians may be more convinced. Actions speak

louder than > words.

I agree, Tony -- unfortunately

for the prospects for peace,

Israel's parliamentary system

of government often incurs

some very odious compromises

with right-wing parties that

support the settlers, who are

imho fanatics every bit as

dangerous as the most radical

Arab faction.> > Having Sharon, who is a war criminal responsibe for

the massacres > in > the Lebanese refugee camps, is like having

Heydrich in the cabinet.

See above -- Sharon isn't

there because Barak wants him

there, he's there because

without him there would have

to be new elections.

Netanyahu -- a sinister and

amoral man if ever there was

one -- seems to be revving up

for a comeback should such an

election occur.

> It > is easy to see the frustration of the Palestinians.

Again I agree!

> Some have deeds to > land in Israel proper, from which they were

chased. They should be > financially reimbursed for these in todays

funds.

Indeed they should!> > It is unfortunate that Balfour, Rothchilds, and

the Zionists decided > not only to buy land but to form a state, in

Palestine in the first > place.

Yes, I've often remarked that

the Jewish state would have

been better off set up in

one of the vast deserts of

Australia or the southwest

U.S. -- but the conditioning

of a divinely-promised

"Eretz Yisroel" in Palestine

is very strong and a great

deal of suffering has come of

it. Karma.

> However the clock cannot be turned back but it can be stopped > from

happening in the West Bank.

I hope you're right.>

[mucho snippage]

http://come.to/realizationhttp://www.atman.net/realizationhttp://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htmhttp://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm

[Guest guest]

A couple of links for anyone wanting to educate themselves about the goings on

in

Israel beyond what the tv news says are the opinion pages of the Jerusalem Post

http://www.jpost.com/ for Israeli opinion and the editorials on the Palestinian

national authority's website http://www.pna.net for the other side.

 

love,

andrew

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/16/2000 9:08:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

mmealer writes:

 

<< A world overfilled with wonder,

each new day a grand adventure.

The wise may reclaim what they were,

with the currency of what they are.

But it isn't an even trade.

 

........Mace >>

 

Oh, such beautiful chills,

tears, thank you so much

 

Mace you are Bellisima!

[Guest guest]

The problem is in tying religion to land

We are spiritual beings having a human experience and I guess we can be as

miserable as we like.

 

"Hale oh Hale to Ram Das Guru for it is unto him that the glory is do"

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/15/00 7:07:29 PM, mmealer writes:

 

<< Rainbolily wrote:

> My son is psychic and he absorbs these energies almost physically in his

> body, and when this kind of energy breaks out, he bounces literally off the

> walls, and cries in his sleep.

> >>

 

i too suffered from this and my beloved spiritual teacher said " It is just

a hair shirt---Take it off.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/16/2000 9:19:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

SJSKhalsa writes:

 

<< The problem is in tying religion to land >>

 

That's an interesting comment, especially in light of the work i'm doing now.

 

The Native American Chiefs I met with last week said, "your GATT

Free Trade Treaty is something we have done for centuries." They,

the Indians, never had borders, they were falsely created here by

the English.

 

So, we are making a Native American entity to work on structuring

a body of law based on the Native American paths.

 

So, perhaps religion is a structure we wrap around spiritual truths.

 

And, perhaps laws are a structure that we wrap around land.

 

Both are perhaps inaccurate in translation to words. And the second,

wrapping the laws around the lands are perhaps completely false

as a structure ... hmmm? Perhaps we honor Mother Earth and

Father Sky as part of the Divine Flow of Energy, as we honor

the temples of our bodies which house our spirits?

 

Skekinah ... Gaia ... Malkuth ... Mother Earth ... and the Star Sky

 

*~*~*

 

Any thoughts anyone?

 

Much Love and Light,

~ bo ~

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/16/2000 1:43:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

a.macnab writes:

 

<<

love,

andrew

>>

Hiya Andrew, I know you offered these with love...

"opinions are like ... ... everyone has one" *g*

 

I just wanted to say hi and was a good excuse :-)

 

Love,

Annette

[Guest guest]

Namaste Gerry,

 

It seems nobody publically knows what the offer Barak put on the

table. 92% is not a 100% and would leave seeds for the future. Also

Arafat is not going to go against 1 billion Muslims and their

feelings on Jerusalem. He cannot do that. I hope something is

resolved for Israel and Pakistan, at least have nuclear and other

weapons. I actually am not taking sides per se, just following what

I consider to be an injustice. No doubt there have been massacres of

Jews in the past as well, but it is not in proportion to what

happened to the Palestinians.

 

Karma will bring back Jews as Palestinians, and Palestinians as

Jews, forever unless they stop it. The onus is really on those with

the power and might.

 

It is a classic karmic situation, worse than N.Ireland.

 

In the end it will probably be decided on whether the US remains a

powerful economy and world power, or fears losing same.

 

It is a mind trap, but unfortunately we have to deal with illusion.

 

If one steps back one sees no differences but just images in the game.

 

Om Namah Sivaya Tony.

 

 

 

, GCWein1111@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 10/16/00 10:07:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> aoclery writes:

>

> <<

> Namaste Gerry,

>

> I think if Israel didn't build settlements on occupied land,

> claiming historical or really dubious Biblical rights--the

> Palestinians may be more convinced. Actions speak louder than

words.

>

> Having Sharon, who is a war criminal responsibe for the massacres

in

> the Lebanese refugee camps, is like having Heydrich in the cabinet.

> It

> is easy to see the frustration of the Palestinians. Some have deeds

> to

> land in Israel proper, from which they were chased. They should be

> financially reimbursed for these in todays funds.

> >>

>

> l don't have any problem with what you're saying here, Tony. As

l said, l

> DO sympathize with the Palestinians in many of their gripes. From

what l'd

> heard, l thought Barak was offering to give pretty close to all of

the

> territory in question back (the figure l heard was 92% of it) along

with a

> plan for Jerusalem that would try to accomodate the interests of

both sides.

> ls this wrong?

>

> jerry

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/16/2000 11:04:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

a.macnab writes:

 

<<

Hi Annette,

Yes but if people are going to discuss the issue and its roots and possible

solutions

and all, it's good to read what the people on both sides are writing and

thinking. The

information we get through the americanadian media is pretty well chewed up

digested

and run through a whole other bunch of opinions I think. >>

 

Andrew, I agree. An "idea" cannot really come down manifested from the

Aethers as the Tibetan Buddhists call it until at least one person can

formulate this thought in their mind. Like Einstein's Theory of Relat.

another scientist then did the same equation a contintent away in less than

six months.

 

So, if enough brilliant people are thinking about it, surely someone will

find a solution worthy of implementing. It's the 100th monkey syndrome to

bring it down to basics.

 

Much L*L*L to you and yours,

Annette

[Guest guest]

Rainbolily wrote:

>

> Nicolas has just turned eight and thank you Mace for your beautiful

> stories, loved the Blue Bonnet flowers, exceptionally sweet.

>

> Love and Light, bo

>

 

What an extraordinary and magical age, don't miss a moment

It only comes round once, you are truly blessed!

 

 

Do You Remember

 

Do you remember:

Squishing the mud between your toes.

Running in the magic of a new pair of shoes.

Wishing on stars on a cool spring night.

The smell and warmth of a winter fire.

The wet tongue of a puppy on your face.

The laughter of a good friend.

The pride in your fathers eyes.

The love in your mothers voice,

singing you quietly to sleep.

A world overfilled with wonder,

each new day a grand adventure.

The wise may reclaim what they were,

with the currency of what they are.

But it isn't an even trade.

 

........Mace