Messianic Jews say they are persecute...

Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

There are 72030 comments on the Newsday story from Jun 21, 2008, titled Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel. In it, Newsday reports that:

Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#44577 Dec 1, 2012
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
And please also add the Covenant was conditional, it was not one sided contract.
If one party did such and such, they would be rewarded with this and that.
But is they will fail to meet their part of the covenant, they would have to face such and such.
This makes it a very impartial and justifiable covenant. But people generally remove the conditional part from it.
It makes them free to do anything they like, but binds the other party to continue doing its past.
I hope that both of you would take this also into context and then many things would become clear to you.
Indeed, the covenant with the land has conditions and they are plainly stated.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#44578 Dec 1, 2012
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you light two cigarettes and share one after "being with" your donkey?
Let me straighten your thoughts. I RIDE donkeys while you DO donkeys. Also I am NOT a smoker.

In addition, you certainly have an unnatural habit of DOING donkeys which is followed by your strange custom of giving the donkeys a smoke. Is it ganja that you smoke? is that why the donkeys yield to your perverted assault?
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#44579 Dec 1, 2012
Humor Me wrote:
Why do Jews have big noses?
Because they are special in much the same way that people of African descent have big dicks, they too are special.
Frijoles

Litchfield, CT

#44581 Dec 2, 2012
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
So, when some one demands title to any land based on the covenant, we must verify did they complete their part of the covenant or not?
If they have not fulfilled their part of the covenant, what right they have to demand "Title for the land" based on the covenant?
I hope you understand the situation here. People are claiming Title for the land without fulfilling ANY of the condition of the Original Covenant.
Is their stand justified? Logically, reasonably? Legally? Morally?
The bought much of the land from the Ottomans, thats why. Then, the rest was legitimately conquored from the Jordanian government Their was never such a thing as Palestinian title.

And by the way, we all saw how much Hamas loves Jerusalem. I dont know about you, but when I love something, I dont fire rockets at it.
Frijoles

Litchfield, CT

#44582 Dec 2, 2012
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed, the covenant with the land has conditions and they are plainly stated.
What right do you have to live in Jamaica? What did you do with your indigenous?
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#44583 Dec 2, 2012
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
So, when some one demands title to any land based on the covenant, we must verify did they complete their part of the covenant or not?
If they have not fulfilled their part of the covenant, what right they have to demand "Title for the land" based on the covenant?
I hope you understand the situation here. People are claiming Title for the land without fulfilling ANY of the condition of the Original Covenant.
Is their stand justified? Logically, reasonably? Legally? Morally?
MUQ---So, when some one demands title to any land based on the covenant, WE must verify did they complete their part of the covenant or not?

HughBe--- WE who?

MUQ---If they have not fulfilled their part of the covenant, what right they have to demand "Title for the land" based on the covenant?

HughBe--- The covenant is between the covenant makers. It is the AGGRIEVED party to the covenant that will determine whether or not the other party has fulfilled their part of the covenant.

MUQ--I hope you understand the situation here.

HughBe--- Yes, I understand. This is it, parties who are NOT a part of the covenant want to be judge and mediators without being invited to do so.

MUQ--- People are claiming Title for the land without fulfilling ANY of the condition of the Original Covenant.

HughBe--- That is really the concern of the AGGRIEVED party to the covenant. Besides, it is somewhat impossible to fulfill the conditions of the covenant outside of the land.

MUQ---Is their stand justified? Logically, reasonably? Legally? Morally

HughBe--- These are questions that are to be addressed by the AGGRIEVED party, to the covenant.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#44584 Dec 2, 2012
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
What right do you have to live in Jamaica? What did you do with your indigenous?
HughBe---Indeed, the covenant with the land has conditions and they are plainly stated.

Frijoles--What right do you have to live in Jamaica? What did you do with your indigenous?

HughBe--- Do you understand the matter? Of course NOT. We are talking about covenant. I have no such covenant for Jamaica.

I am going to be kind to you and not ask you what RIGHT do you have to live in the US. Anyhow, my right comes from the fact that I am born here and as such I am a Jamaican and that title gives me the right.

As I have said, previously, I ATE the women and I shall now add that the men died out in part because they had no female to reproduce with plus you poisoned them with your pencil.

Have a blessed day.
former res

Broomall, PA

#44585 Dec 2, 2012
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me straighten your thoughts. I RIDE donkeys while you DO donkeys. Also I am NOT a smoker.
In addition, you certainly have an unnatural habit of DOING donkeys which is followed by your strange custom of giving the donkeys a smoke. Is it ganja that you smoke? is that why the donkeys yield to your perverted assault?
That's a real clown answer.

So if it walks like a clown and talks like a clown, it must be a clown.
rabbee yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#44587 Dec 2, 2012
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
So, when some one demands title to any land based on the covenant, we must verify did they complete their part of the covenant or not?
If they have not fulfilled their part of the covenant, what right they have to demand "Title for the land" based on the covenant?
I hope you understand the situation here. People are claiming Title for the land without fulfilling ANY of the condition of the Original Covenant.
Is their stand justified? Logically, reasonably? Legally? Morally?
rabbee: whether G-D moves someone out, and someone else in. was not by your, decision. if they are there, you only need to inquire of G-D why they are there.

where you were, where you are, and where you are to be, is all determined by G-D. and only G-D, when or if any ongoing covenant is to be completed. or if it is, to be fulfilled.

for all fighting against G-D, is done mentally even if your fighting each other or otherwise devestated becomes a physical sign.

and talking critters, put themselves at risk in the judgement as animals. as the animal world, is an extreemly violent place. as the preying mantis, devours the centepede or vice versa.

and so control of the animal world, is done by angels and not Angels. as the same rules for animals, apply to talking critters. as the laws of G-D, only applies to human beings. and no talking critter, can be defined as man wth G-D.
Frijoles

Litchfield, CT

#44588 Dec 2, 2012
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a real clown answer.
So if it walks like a clown and talks like a clown, it must be a clown.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdukd8ovsH1...
Frijoles

Litchfield, CT

#44589 Dec 2, 2012
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed, the covenant with the land has conditions and they are plainly stated.
It occurred to me that....

...the fact we have a ideologically committed Christian discussing Jewish theology with an ideologically committed muslim, NEITHER who have any clue or familiarity with the subject at hand due to language, ideology, and cultural divides,...

...is a GOOD ENOUGH reason ALONE for the need for a Jewish homeland for Jews to escape this nonsense.
Frijoles

Litchfield, CT

#44590 Dec 2, 2012
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
HughBe---Indeed, the covenant with the land has conditions and they are plainly stated.
Frijoles--What right do you have to live in Jamaica? What did you do with your indigenous?
HughBe--- Do you understand the matter? Of course NOT. We are talking about covenant. I have no such covenant for Jamaica.
I am going to be kind to you and not ask you what RIGHT do you have to live in the US. Anyhow, my right comes from the fact that I am born here and as such I am a Jamaican and that title gives me the right.
As I have said, previously, I ATE the women and I shall now add that the men died out in part because they had no female to reproduce with plus you poisoned them with your pencil.
Have a blessed day.
Understood. You beg off the question of imperialism.

And as a result you have NO standing to opine regarding the Jewish tie to their homeland.

You need to preach what you practice.
former res

Broomall, PA

#44591 Dec 2, 2012
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
It occurred to me that....
...the fact we have a ideologically committed Christian discussing Jewish theology with an ideologically committed muslim, NEITHER who have any clue or familiarity with the subject at hand due to language, ideology, and cultural divides,...
...is a GOOD ENOUGH reason ALONE for the need for a Jewish homeland for Jews to escape this nonsense.
George Marshall advised Truman against it and there has been no peace since (or before for that matter).

Much sympathy for the Jewish people after the war; and guilt too. Rightfully so.

What do you think of Obama's previous suggestion of '67 borders of course with land swaps?
Frijoles

Litchfield, CT

#44592 Dec 2, 2012
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
George Marshall advised Truman against it and there has been no peace since (or before for that matter).
Much sympathy for the Jewish people after the war; and guilt too. Rightfully so.
What do you think of Obama's previous suggestion of '67 borders of course with land swaps?
Obama,even though he caught lots of flack, didnt say anything that hadnt been official US policy in the preceeding admins

Bill CLinton said it concisely around 2002 - to the effect of: At the end of the day there is only ONE possible configuration for a solution. He figured it out to the last acre in his last ditch attempt at solving it during the waning moments of his presidency. The ISraelis know this, as well as the pragmatic of the Palestinians. The land swaps are all known.

The problem is that no Palestinian leader is willing to admit to their people that the right of return will never happen. Compensation can happen, but Israel proper will NEVER absorb the descendents of the original Palestinians.

Even Jerusalem is solveable. East Jerusalem minus the holy sites to the Palestinians.
Frijoles

Litchfield, CT

#44593 Dec 2, 2012
I forgot to say that Clintons ONE solution was the 67 line with land swap.

BTW the 67 line was never a legal border. The only legal border is the 1949 armistice line. Its the Palestinians who keep claiming the 67 is a border (and everyone else using the terminology out of laziness) since it is a better deal for them than the 49 lines, and because they dont want to recognize past history.
Frijoles

Litchfield, CT

#44594 Dec 2, 2012
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that no Palestinian leader is willing to admit to their people that the right of return will never happen. Compensation can happen, but Israel proper will NEVER absorb the descendents of the original Palestinians.
Even Jerusalem is solveable. East Jerusalem minus the holy sites to the Palestinians.
Also, the longer the Pals refuse to give up on the right of return, the longer the logjam, which empowers the segment of the Israeli society that DOESNT want a Pal state (the settlers) by giving them time to establish "facts on the ground" in unhelpul areas.....
former res

Broomall, PA

#44595 Dec 2, 2012
Frijoles wrote:
I forgot to say that Clintons ONE solution was the 67 line with land swap.
BTW the 67 line was never a legal border. The only legal border is the 1949 armistice line. Its the Palestinians who keep claiming the 67 is a border (and everyone else using the terminology out of laziness) since it is a better deal for them than the 49 lines, and because they dont want to recognize past history.
The pandering right (Fox News et al) vilified Obama and conveniently left the part about land swaps out of what he said, or so it sounded like to me.

In any case, Bibi potested the statement:

The Israeli government immediately protested, saying that for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders would leave it “indefensible.” Mr. Netanyahu held an angry phone conversation with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday before the speech, officials said, in which he demanded that the president’s reference to 1967 borders be cut.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/middl...
Puuto

Bedford, MA

#44596 Dec 2, 2012
Let israel fight their own fights. They've been warinf for a long time. The US needs to pull all support out. It's easy to fight with everyone when you got Big Bro loaded and ready.
Frijoles

Litchfield, CT

#44597 Dec 2, 2012
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
The pandering right (Fox News et al) vilified Obama and conveniently left the part about land swaps out of what he said, or so it sounded like to me.
In any case, Bibi potested the statement:
The Israeli government immediately protested, saying that for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders would leave it “indefensible.” Mr. Netanyahu held an angry phone conversation with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday before the speech, officials said, in which he demanded that the president’s reference to 1967 borders be cut.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/middl...
Bibi did. He also brought Israel and US to the brink of a major argument regarding Iran, causing a near revolt of the other Israeli leaders, which caused him to back off. Bottom line is that Bibi doesnt have full support for what he says.

Fox wasnt alone either. A lot of Jews were very uncomfortable with that statement until it later got reported in its entirety, and when people realized that it was no change in policy.

However, Obama has been no friend to Israel with regard to Jerusalem, he instructed the state dept not to recognize Jerusalem on passports, which has been a thorn in the side of all Jews, liberal and rightwing, and especially those dual citizens born in Jerusalem (their birth city isnt recognized by the US). THis long standing issue primed a lot of Jews NOT to give Obama the benefit of doubt initially with the 67 quote.
What

Bedford, MA

#44598 Dec 2, 2012
Drop the Jews. Let them fight on their own.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Santa Clara Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News WNMU to continue recruiting DACA students despi... 1 hr Every 3
News Yes, Denny's is coming Jun 11 Tiger37 1
News Armory celebrates 100 years Jun 7 my opinion 1
News Old-fashioned Fourth of July party (Jul '13) May 27 YUUUUP 4
Grant Co.---rotten corner of NM (Sep '11) May '16 CrookedHillary 57
News Man charged with murder gets probation (Aug '08) May '16 operation greylord 45
News Murdered woman found at Mule Creek (Dec '08) Apr '16 wwwnorthfortyhomecom 7
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Santa Clara Mortgages