You didn't pay attention. There is a link who explains Hezbollah's (and beirut's) claims against Israel some posts ago. You will find there why they are still a part of the conflict. Hezbollah is not the issue btw, the issue is the supposed presbyterians' antisemitism. You would be surprised but I guess that the fact finding mission could speak also with syrians and jordanians. But hey, am I the only one who thinks that saying the presbyterians are antisemites is BS?
Ah it's a bad thing that we can't post images anymore. You had only to show the image of a white flag instead of a pathetic play with words.
It is difficult to argue that something represents racism/anti-semitism, it is almost always impossible to prove. However, when a church elder praises "precious words" of an openly anti-semitic terrorist organization, while contrasting them with "Jewish leaders", yea, it kinda makes you wonder.
Again? And go round and round and round In the circle game http://www.uppa.it/archivi/2002/11/images/7_1.gif
You made the idiotic argument that divestment from China was irrelevant because "it wouldn't help Palestinians." My point was that there are several world problems severely more pressing than that of Palestine. PC-USA, in defense of their statement, insisted that they regularly speak out against human rights abuses in other countries. Yet they never bothered to divest from those countries. The double standard, and hence the racism, is clear. As I said before, I do not think all Presbyterians are racist, and in fact praised those who stood up to this outrage. I do think the resolution is based on racism. Zidane you aint.
Talking to deaf ppl. I said "Divestments in China wouldn't be of any help regarding the israeli-palestinian issue" You didn't answer my questions that's why you don't understand why your argument is silly. Still it is. what is USA doing to solve those problems in China? Why USA loses times and efforts with roadmaps in ME and so on while ignoring Tibet? Why US proposals to solve the ME conflict don't involve Tibet? And the anti defamation league? Why american evangelicals are not battling for tibetans rights instead of throwing away money for Israel? I think there are several world problems severely more pressing (and morally acceptable) than actively helping the growth of settlements in the Occupied Territories. http://www.cfoic.com/index.asp?mainpage=press&id=115 These men are actively helping the settlers, why the Anti defamation league doesn't condamn them? Why do evangelicals hate palestinians? The silly notion is that who depicts ppl and organizations who care about the ME conflict as suspiciously overinterested only if they are not blindly pro-israel. It reminds me of when Ben Reilly asks me why I don't think about Tibet or anything else in a thread titled "Israel etc. etc." or "palestinians etc. etc.". Same approach. The answer is easy. And why you can have your opinion and argue and care about while I cannot? Seems like one is legitimated only if he/she is a proisraeli. Weird stuff believe me, if you could look at the issue with neutral eyes you would understand it soon.
Yeah, whatever you say, Yoda. So what if divestments in China wouldn't be of any help regarding the israeli palestinian issue. It would address a significantly greater human rights problem. Again, you ignore the fact that the PC-USA, in defending their resolution, insists that they have no particular antipathy against Israel, but regularly address global issues. However, they have never addressed significantly more evil countries with the threat of divestment. The question is what PC-USA is doing to solve these problems, not what the U.S. government is. The ADL regularly addresses a wide variety of topics, and in fact regularly speaks out against Jewish or Israeli racism when they see it. I am no fan of american evangelicals political movements, but to their credit they have spoken out for religious freedom in countries like China. And the best you can find is in 1998 link saying that evangelicals support Israel. Pathetic. No, the notion is that anyone who selectively targets out the Jewish state for a racist boycott is doing just that. Because you are a racist moron who can't get your facts straight.
Recover, JPhurst. http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20030619-000001.xml Bigotry - The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.
The PC-USA has renounced the meeting with Hezbollah and called the elder's statements "reprehensible." http://www.pcusa.org/ Although this doesn't address the root of PC-USA's problem (the divestment resolution), at least they were of strong enough character to apologize for giving credence to hezbollah. Now does Sardinia have that character? Doubt it.
I am not presbyterian, I have my opinion and it does not depend on what PC-USA says or any other says. I see nothing wrong in meeting hezbollah if the aim is peace dialogue and a better knowledge of all the aspects of the conflict. I wasn't outraged by the fact (meeting with hezbollah) and I am not outraged by the opinions of these 3 top officials. I feel a bit for them because I am sure that they had to bear a huge number of annoying bigots in these past days. I am happy that now presbyterians are no more antisemites.
I have a different opinion. When JPhurst calls me a moron he is just showing his own frustration. I have no problem in riconsidering my stances though I only do it when I have been convinced with arguments and facts that my previous stance was wrong , not surely because someone calls me a moron or someone says that if someone else calls me a moron I should change my mind. And knowing you a bit I know for certain that you're lying, if JPhurst calls you a moron while arguing you'd double the diarrhea of words. Don't forget you're the man of the endless discussions.
I've no interest in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) or any other religious body but I'd have thought that any attempt to open discussions with people whose present alternative is to support terrorism must be a good thing.
Depends what the purpose of the dialogue is. If PC-USA was meeting as a mediator between Hezbollah and Israel, and the agenda was ending Hezbollah's rejectionist stance and assisting them in disarming, opening up relations with Israel, etc, that may be one thing. By the published accounts, however, the delgation was to strenghten ties between the PC-USA and Hezbollah against a common enemy, Israel. That's not to say that PC-USA was going to start engaging in terrorist activity, but they were demonstrating that they found their views to be acceptable and were willing to give audience to them despite their endorsement of terror and rejectionist stance. Again, the fact that this comes on the heels of the divestment resolution cannot be ignored.
Depends on what you mean by 'it', doesn't it. Which 'version' are you referring to... http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ChJew_31/4578_31.htm 'Elder Stone went on to praise Hezbollah: "We treasure the precious words of Hezbollah and your expression of goodwill towards the American people."' http://www.pcusa.org/israelandjewishrelations/faq.htm 'the 2004 Assembly also "vigorously urges the U.S. government, the government of Israel, and the Palestinian leadership to move swiftly, and with resolve, to recognize that the only way out of this chronic and vicious impasse is to abandon all approaches that exacerbate further strife, lay aside arrogant political posturing, and get on with forging negotiated compromises that open a path to peace."' Unfortunately, when Israel and the Palestinians are involved, reality and logic seems to fly out of the window.
Stone's statement, which summarizes his visit to Lebanon, is the thread's subject. The statement by PCUSA is your usual "Can't we all just get along" hogwash.
The logic of an economic war on tiny Israel is fairly straight foward, despite the "peaceful" language.
Exactly. Can't we all just get along while I stab you in the back and twist the knife. What, you're complaining?
Uh huh... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/694035.stm ' Mr Livingstone also took questions on his views on the IRA, after he called them "freedom fighters" during the 1980s. He said: "That is how the IRA saw themselves - at the time the British Government's views were that these were simply psychopaths and godfathers of crime. "They denied a political motive, I therefore said you've got to understand the political motive of the IRA." ' Israel has a conflict with the Palestinian's - we had the conflict with the IRA. Er, can someone just remind me which one is still going???
If instead of Ken Livingstone or some other Englishman/woman saying the above, it was a representative of the Catholic Church, I'm guessing many British would have reacted quite differently to the above quote. Particularly if the quote was something like "It is much easier to dialogue with Catholic IRA freedom fighters than Protestant British. We treasure the precious words of the IRA and your expression of goodwill towards the Vatican."