Well, if you believe in biblical prophecy, maybe the Palestinians and Israelis will form a single state solution, rebuild the temple and bring on the apocalypse! God, after all, works in mysterious ways.

But I would not be so bold as to interpret such an event as being the abomination that causes desolation described in Biblical prophecies. Seems like that would be harmless, if not beneificial.

Somehow I suspect this abomination will be much more sinister (maybe along the lines of human sacrifice [?]) and is most probably an event that will occur well into the future.

Gasp! A Christian that doesn't think Jesus is coming any day now.

The way I see it, things must get a whole lot worse before they can get better.

ps. What if this abomination is some confederation between "Christians" and "Jews", wiping out Palestinians (actual descendants of Abraham)? Bunch of wealth loving heathens killing people that pray formally five times a day. Try printing that in your local newspaper.

pps. (sorry). Here's what I really think. I think true Jews are Jews not because of whose blood flow in their veins. Forget flesh. It's matters of spirit that count. Anyone placing themselves above others as a matter of heritage is off track.

What I see coming from the federation of the West and the country of Israel is not holy. Nor are many calling themselves Muslims and allowing hatred to live in their hearts.

My guess is that true Jews will come from every nation, language and tribe of humanity and all will be outcasts of their relative societies.

I did inhale.

Jews and non-Jews have been debating this for centuries. There isn't any religious set of beliefs that must be accepted in order to be a Jew. A Jew is simply one who is born of a Jewish mother or who converts. That leads to the complex nature of Jewish identity: it's like being a member of a large family or clan, into which one is either born or adopted into (and Judaism is strict about maintaining no difference between the two).

Any religion or family or whatever we're going to call it is made up of those descended from the "original members" and those who have signed on voluntarily. But for Jews the biological or genetic line of descent is still very strong, as you may know if you've read the articles in recent years discussing genetic research on those Jews claiming to be kohanim (descendants of Aaron, Moses' brother). The research concluded that their claim is genetically supported. (Example: January 7, 1997 story in the NY Times by Denise Grady)

So the argument that Jews are somehow less descendants of Abraham than Palestinian Muslims doesn't hold any water. Both Jews and Arabs are children of Abraham. Whether Jews have lived in a diaspora for centuries, or whether Palestinians themselves may also have Ottoman Turks or other non-Arabs amont their ancestors, is beside the point.

that self-declaration and self-identification is ample as far as I - as an outsider - am concerned - especially when inclusion in a group contains valid elements of both genetics and observance.

If you declare it, you are it as far as I'm concerned; it's up to the Jewish community itself internally to take - or not take - a stance on the validity of those claims as they're raised, and no-one else. I have no desire, and no standing, to do so.

but it makes the gyrations no less fascinating to the outside observer.

- EOM

aren't you led to the basic conclusion that Pelosi is a gullible idiot, unqualified for a trip like this one?

Now that you mention it - no, you haven't succeeded in leading me there. But I didn't start from the necessity of reaching that conclusion.

Let me sum up your position.

Pelosi is bad. She's either bad for making things up or she's bad for being "a gullible idiot, unqualified for a trip like this one". Ideally there's a way to make her both.

Does that about cover it?

Nope.

Personally, I had some hope for Pelosi's visit. I really, really did.

I agree with the point of view that this is a good time to begin implementing an unofficial diplomatic effort outside of the administration. Like both the Democratic party the current administration, I believe that diplomacy is ultimately the key to resolving many of the tensions in the region.

I also believe that Pelosi screwed the pooch with her press conference and, to a lesser extent, her photo-op tourism in Syria. She made a series of beginner's mistakes, betraying a naivite of semitic (including arabic) culture, especially in the region. She wound up being played like a fiddle by Assad. In light of the domestic situation, it appears that she, not the White House, was over-eager to play the trip for short-term domestic political gain. Her "message of peace" press conference was the biggest mistake in that it was, quite obviously, something that Israel could not fail to object to. Olmert is to be credited for the restraint displayed in rebutting that press conference.

I also support the Iraq war and I think the old-guard in the administration has got things about as right as practical (other than badly blowing the first year or so of the occupation -- that's their huge blunder and, yes, it's bigger than (though compounded by) Pelosi's). No, that isn't a contradiction but it will take a while, as we get to know one another, to explain why.

Anyway, Pelosi had a right objective but an incompetent implementation. It is important to call her out on it. That visit was a horrible, potentially disasterous lead-card for diplomatic efforts from the next administration. It was embarassing.

Look, what is at stake here is this: Yes, we are going to wind up winding down in Iraq before it is anywhere near as settled as one might wish (again, blame the early days of the occupation). The extreme, present danger is that that winding down occurs in such a way that, just a few short years down the line, we're going to wind up in a very, very hot war in that region. That is the outcome that, so far, the democratic party leaders seem unwilling to acknowledge in word or action and all too willing to bring about for short-term political gain domestically. It's all too consistent with Pelosi's ill-considered press conference.

-t

specifics to back that assertion up.

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

...the major strategic objective vis-a-vis Syria is to strip it away from Iran. That's very unlikely to be achieved by continuing to isolate Syria but is quite likely to be facilitated, at least in the early stages, by engaging Syria. To be clear, later stages will be significantly more difficult and will require much more (i.e., changed governments in the United States and Israel). Pelosi's trip is the form engagement has to take when the administration won't begin to step up to the plate.

"Political Islam is a dream or a nightmare, but not a sociological reality." - Olivier Roy, Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah

It wasn't a major policy shift. You should also folow the links in the actual article before trying your predigested spin - it indicates very clearly that in the Israeli press the message was already known before Pelosi even got to Syria and frankly, Israel has gone out of its way repeatedly to indicate it doesn't want war with Syria over the last couple years.

You can always betray a person once by using up the presumption of trust. You can't do it twice, and now Pelosi knows Olmert isn't an honest actor. If you are so blinded by your partisanship that you don't know that Pelosi is exactly the sort of person who remembers and pays back such things then that's unfortunate. Hopefully your ideologicial allies will continue to underestimate her as well.

But although we differ on literalism and belief in "end times" per se, I applaud your last sentence unreservedly. It's hard to reconcile a belief in an omniscient, omnipotent God with the notion that God actually requires "help".

Pelosi hears boos at AIPAC

By Ian Swanson
March 13, 2007

Members of the main pro-Israel lobbying group offered scattered boos to a statement by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that the Iraq war has been a failure on several scores.

The boos, mixed with some polite applause, stood in stark contrast to the reception House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) received minutes earlier. Most of the crowd of 5,000 to 6,000 stood and loudly applauded Boehner when he said the U.S. had no choice but to win in Iraq.

Pelosi and Boehner were speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual meeting. AIPAC has not taken a position on the war in Iraq or the supplemental spending bill to be considered this week by the House Appropriations Committee, but much of Boehner’s speech was about the future of the Iraq conflict.

(...)

( ... Link ... )

and may the better movement win. The broad base of the citizenry has tools and methods that the innate conservativism of an aristocracy can't match.

Everyone knows the adage: put a frog in a pan of boiling water, and it will jump out. But put a frog in a pan of cool water and slowly raise the heat underneath it and it will boil to death without noticing.

I haven't heard anyone really discuss the obvious corollary of this, which is the care that must be taken to not get impatient, to not move too fast. That the prime word is slowly - make the mistake of turning the heat up too quickly and the frog hops out, startled by the sudden change. The prime enabler is patient and slow incremental change.

They've blown their wad in the last six years, cranked the heat up too fast because the principals are aging, the President was compliant and dim, the VP an autocrat born and bred and 9/11 dropped in their lap tied up with a ribbon - blown forty years of careful patient planning by getting too eager at the finish line.

Now there's immense potential energy stored in what's waiting to be the mother of all social backlashes.

[incidentally, the frog story? It's actually an urban myth - apparently frogs know better. But on the level of useful metaphor... - ES]

countless times. Bogus argument.

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}