gregorygarver.com

HighVoltageBlonde · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 6

Please do not be offended,if I offend on this,it is from ignorance,and unintentional.How important is it for Israel to be where it is?I'll try to clarify.I know that is the historic place of the Jews,temple of Solomon and all,but,is the main concern keeping THAT land?Or in being secure?What I am getting at is,if the world offered another,comparable(I realise not from a religious standpoint)piece of land NOT in the middle-east with absolute security guarantees,and gave the money for relocation,would this be acceptible?Or does the "sacredness" of that land make moving NOT an option?Just wondering here,I really don't know a lot about Jews,so,sorry if I offended with the question600.just bite me idiot.there was nothing anti-anything in my question.get a life loserThank you "Oldguy",Tabitha,and Pasta for the great answers.I wouldv'e leftit for a vote,but there were some nasties on here.Oh well,yet another world problem I have no clue how to solve.I wasn't SUGGESTING anything.Every once in awhile(Very rarely,lol(an idea pops in my head and I simply wanted to see if that balloon would float.It's gonna take someone a LOT smarter than me to solve things.Thanks for the THOUGHTFUL answers all.

ClaytonS · Joined: 07 Aug 2005 Posts: 7

Interesting idea, but that alternative location is likely to be occupied by somebody who may not appreciate the Israelis moving in. Same problem, different place.

goz11112655 · Joined: 22 Apr 2005 Posts: 2

Nice idea - with no chance of happening. All the Abrahamic religions regard the area as deeply holy, and they all think God gave it to *them*.For a deity who finds the odour of burning flesh 'pleasing', he couldn't have made a better move to guarantee a supply of that smell.CD

Twilight · Joined: 14 Jul 2004 Posts: 5

Not a Jew but have done much study in Jewish history. The real question is where in the world can they go. Before they moved to Israel they did consider a number of different places to go. The Father of Zionism (Chaim Wiseman - I think it was him, no it was Chaim Herzog) in early 1900's favored a place in Uganda and other places were also considered. Truth is no one wanted them anywhere and so Israel, which was basically uninhabited at that time, only 24% of the land was even owned by individuals and only about 16 % was occupied, and no one wanted it because it was all deserts and swamps, became the only place they could find. Now they are settled in Israel, I can't see anything moving them again.

DaveakaSpiderMonkey · Joined: 19 Mar 2004 Posts: 5

dont ask questions like this

tonalc1 · Joined: 29 Dec 2006 Posts: 3

Your question is not offensive, but it's sweet of you to mention that.I do appreciate what you're asking, but as a Jew I can only say it would be, for us, the equivalent of asking Muslims if Mecca could be put somewhere else. Or maybe Rome.And you have to remember that even if the Jewish state had, for argument's sake, been put elsewhere, there would probably still have been problems, though admittedly perhaps not as bad.Our claim on Israel goes back further than that of anyone else. Jews have lived continuously there for almost four thousand years. And a crucial point is that we didn't take the land from anyone else. The British held the mandate and they promised the land twice - once to us, once to the Arabs.If the Arabs had agreed to partition back in 1947, there would be a Palestinian state existing alongside Israel right now.Instead the Arabs refused, and five neighbouring Arab nations simultaneously attacked Israel within 12 hours of the Jewish state declaring independence.If you'd like to read more about these issues and the situation, then two really interesting novels, that are well researched, are by Leon Uris. 'Exodus' tells the story more from the Jewish perspective.'The Haj' is told more from the Arab viewpoint.Both are fascinating books, very colourful reads, and I would highly recommend them both.EDIT - THE IDIOT WHO HAS ANSWERED JUST BELOWIgnore this person's response. I've seen them write really offensive things and they are not Jewish and don't speak for us. There is NOTHING offensive about your question, don't give it another thought, OK?EDIT : L'chaim makes some excellent points.PASTA T also makes some vital points.

Berries · Joined: 22 May 2005 Posts: 5

this question IS ANTI-SEMETIC, AND WILL BE REPORTED AS SUCH.JEWS HAVE SUFFERED MORE THAN ANYONE, NOW YOU POST SUCH HATRED FOR JEWS.I've contacted the ADL(anti-defamation league, and B'nai B'rith) expect to be contacted, they can take ur IP address and all information from your ISP.Good luck, you need it.I AM JEWISH, I'M A ZIONIST ORTHODOX JEW.THE PERSON ABOVE ME IS PROBABLY A MESSIANIC /FALSE BACKSTABBER JEW.Or a christian pretending to be jewish.GET A LIFE please, God knows the truth.

digdowndeepnseattle · Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 8

Modern Zionism is a political movement, not a religious movement. Other areas of the world were considered as a safehaven for Jews during the 20th century, but eventually it was the UK that assumed the responsibility for protecting Jews in Israel (Balfour Declaration).Regardless of where the Jewish safehaven might be located, Israel will always have a place in their hearts for the land of Israel. If you are familiar with the Tanakh ("Old" testament) you will understand that the entire book is about the relationship between God and His people, Israel. Judaism is based on action, not belief. Many of the 613 Commandments apply only in the land of Israel and can only be fulfilled in the rebuilt Temple. Those 613 commandments are part of our covenant (the Christian "old" covenant) with God. They do not apply to non-Jews.Liberal Jews (Conservative, Reform) are no longer observant of all of those commandments; therefore, it is mainly Orthodox Jews who believe that all Jews must re-gather in Israel prior to the coming of the maschiach. When life in Europe became intolerable for Jews (1920s-1940s) and the Zionist movement began (Dreyfus affair) it was the religious Jews who objected to returning to Israel because they believed that they shouldn't return until God called them back. They finally agreed to return after having been promised special powers within the government. To this day, there are Ultra-Orthodox Jews who deny the existence of the State of Israel -- even from the steps of the Kenesset!Orthodox Jews are minority within Judaism. That's why you'll find as many Jews in the US as there are in Israel. Even in Israel, the majority of Jews are secular. But that doesn't mean that we don't all have a special place in our heart for Israel. Judaism is much like a family -- how would you feel about a State that was made up nearly 100 percent of your family members?About relocating Jews to a different area for guaranteed security. I'd be all for it, but there's absolutely no possibility of that ever happening. The Palestinians have been "refugees" for 60 years. The International Community has delegated the responsibility for them to Israel and does nothing to *resettle* them in areas of guaranteed safety. If the International Community won't take any responsibility for those "poor" Palestinians, why on earth would they undertake to move those evil Jews to a safehaven?Perhaps we should start a movement for "resettleing" Palestinians instead of expecting Israel to be caretakers for people bent on their destruction? Are there any other refugees who have remained in "refugee camps" for 60 years? Does the International Community have any responsibility for them? There have been many other war refugees over the centuries. Have they ever been left to languish for 60 years? Why is it that the Arab world hasn't resettled them? They are not welcome in any Arab countries, so when is it that the West will accept responsibility for their resettlement?Not only does the West not help in their resettlement, they accuse Israel of not supplying them with jobs, water, electricity, etc. Isn't it long past the time that the International Community should take some responsibility for their resettlement?President Bill Clinton mentioned a new idea in the works regarding insurance for investors in the West Bank. That could be a way to provide jobs and boost the economy if investors had some backup for the risks they take in Palestinian lands. Perhaps that's a way for the West to make a difference in the area.There are a very few Ultra-Orthodox Jews who claim "THAT" land (West Bank) to be their God-given right. The vast majority of Jews do not support that view. No, you don't offend with the question. It's a great question, but it is political, not religious. You can learn much more from this easy-to-read book:"The Complete Idiot's Guide to Middle East Conflict" by Mitchell Bard, Ph.D.For SuperAtheist: God never accepted the "odor" of burning *human* flesh, but don't we all enjoy the aroma of a backyard BBQ? Jews are forbidden from wasting anything they've killed. All life is sacred and must be treated as such. The aroma was for God, the meat was for the consumption by the priests -- they had no other means of support. Perhaps we should all give some thought to where that meat on the BBQ comes from. Is that really so revulsive? I'm sure vegetarians would think so. It's the Christians who believe in human sacrifice, not the Jews!

LouO · Joined: 25 Aug 2003 Posts: 6

One of the most popular lies--which has become universally accepted as if it were an indisputable truth--is the myth about Jerusalem being the third sacred place to Islam. It is quite rare to hear the honest truth, that Jerusalem is the First and Only Holiest place to Judaism! As a matter of fact, Jerusalem is not mentioned at all in the Qurab, and Muhammad had never been there. (Perhaps he did not even know about the existence of Jerusalem!) The tale about his dream flight has been related with Jerusalem in a very recent time for political strategy purposes.The Islamic claim to the Temple Mount is very recent. Jerusalem's role as "The Third Holiest Site in Islam" in mainstream Islamic writings does not precede the 1930s. It was created by the grand mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini. Most of the problems surrounding Jerusalem can be traced to two areas of dispute: the political area that asks Jerusalem to be the capital of both Israel and the hypothetic Palestine; the other and most contentious problem is the holiness of Temple Mount to both Judaism and Islam. The role Jerusalem has in the Hebrew Holy Scriptures is well known and not open to debate; however, there are varying opinions on the holiness of Jerusalem, specifically the ,Temple Mount to Islam. Many if not most opinions that counter Islam's claim point out the Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran and did not occupy any special role in Islam until recent political exigencies transformed Jerusalem into Islam's "third holy site". This falsehood was created by the grand mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini. The mufti knew that nationalist slogans alone would not succeed in uniting the masses against arriving Jewish refugees; he therefore turned the struggle into a religious conflict. He addressed the masses clearly, calling for a holy war. Since the moment when he was appointed to the position of mufti, Haj Amin worked vigorously to raise Jerusalem's status as an Islamic holy center.