The Von Cello Guestbook is unlike any other! Join the fun! But you must register to post. No spam allowed! Click here for old monthly archives. You can also search using the search button, or reading the back posts listed below.

  Hello Visitor
Register | Login
Von Cello 

Post No. 557
12/07/2006 11:01 PM
Comments (0)
My Rabbi is happy and gay...tra la!

Rosner's Blog
Shmuel Rosner Chief U.S. Correspondent
Posted: December 06, 2006

The abomination debate: Jewish conservatives on the verge of a new era

Twenty-five Conservative rabbis began a thorny debate yesterday on the place of homosexuals in their movement. The rabbis must decide: Can homosexuals become Conservative rabbis and cantors? Can Conservative rabbis conduct same-sex commitment ceremonies? (Update: the Movement's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards allowed the Movement's seminaries to ordain openly gay and lesbian rabbis and cantors)

The Conservative Movement - once the largest Jewish movement in America, but now steadily shrinking - has been debating the issue for some time. In 1992, it rejected proposals for homosexual equality, but since then, the pressure has intensified. The problem, explained one Rabbinical Assembly member, is how to explain rabbinic decisions to Conservative laymen, many of whom "don't understand the halakhic issues involved. They live in a liberal society, and they simply want us to change the laws, just as America changed its laws to give homosexuals equal rights."

For opponents, such a radical break with tradition is not only unacceptable, it could also even be grounds for leaving the movement. This is the most divisive debate the movement has experienced since its debate 30 years ago over equality for women.

Rabbi Joel Roth, who formulated the movement's 1992 opinion against any change in the status of homosexuals, said at the time he simply could not identify any halakhic loophole that would permit such a change - and because the Conservative Movement defines itself as a halakhic movement, such a decision would require some basis in the religious sources.

"An inability to legitimate homosexuality halakhically makes no negative claim whatsoever about the humanity, sanctity, worth and dignity of homosexuals," he stressed in a lecture on the subject. But the Torah's blunt statement on homosexual relations - that a man lying with another man as he would lie with a woman is an "abomination" (Leviticus 18:22) - leaves no wriggle room, say Roth's adherents.

Opponents of Roth's view argue that the Torah prohibition, as well as subsequent rulings by the rabbis, related to a different time and a different type of homosexuality. The Torah, they say, banned what existed then, but could not have banned today's homosexuality, because the current incarnation of same-sex relations is an invention of the modern world.

"Sex, in antiquity, was an activity, not an orientation," explained Rabbi Bradley Artson, one of the advocates of this view. "The meaning of the activity was determined by its context. In the case of same gender sex, that context was always one that treated a human being as an object, or [one] of oppression." And that, he argues, differs from today's model of consensual, caring, same-sex relationships.

"The rabbis were never at a loss for ways to transform or circumvent a biblical institution when later on it came to be viewed as ethically unjustifiable," added Rabbi Howard Handler.

Five different rabbinical opinions have been submitted to the committee for consideration, ranging from no change through limited rights to complete equality for homosexuals. This gives the panel some room to maneuver, and the prevailing view is that it will opt for a compromise: It will adopt one opinion that forbids homosexual ordination and same-sex commitment ceremonies, and another that permits them.

The rules make such an outcome possible: The committee requires a majority of 13 to adopt a binding ruling, but only six votes in favor are needed to adopt a "responsum" - defined as one possible interpretation of a halakhic issue, but not the only one. Thus the committee is widely expected to adopt two contradictory responsa but no binding ruling. That way, each Conservative congregation could decide for itself.

Post No. 556
12/07/2006 05:15 PM
Email eaburke81  
Comments (0)
I'd like those Commandments Super-Sized, please.

From a Catholic perspective, I don't think Catholicsicm could have survived through the Twentieth Century with out the changes that occured to the faith as part of Vatican II in the 1960's. I too, see Catholic doctrine, the Torah for Jews, and the Koran for Muslims, as the real words of God, but I feel if God is an entity who truly loves us, then he or she, or it, would want us to make changes to a small part of the faith to ensure it changes with the times and makes it a little "easier" for us to worship God. I think Jesus would be pro-changes to the mass and other worship if he were alive today becuase he loves us.....sorry if that sounded too much like a halmark card...but he did and does love us. As the old question goes: "what would Jesus do"? Well, if he was alive today, I belive he would call for Church leaders to rule the church honestly and reverently, leaving room for the faith to change with he times I said before. He would also call for more of a separation of church and state, which we definately need to convince Bush to do.
fred and murry 

Post No. 555
12/07/2006 10:15 AM
Comments (0)
who is the ko.sheriff?

i guess its the McDonalization of religion. you start selling only burgers but when u see they want chicken too you sell that too and then ice cream .You do it to keep the collection box filling..Is modern religion or judaism being McDonalized.or maybe the originsal blueprint for religion isnt so clear afterall or maybe its clear but allows legally by gods intention for flexibility....
Von Cello 

Post No. 554
12/07/2006 09:43 AM
Comments (0)
What's the point?

I may be too dogmatic, but I don't really see the point of a religion if all of its laws can be broken or changed. A religion is not like a country. In a country there is no right or wrong except for what the people of the country agree for it to be...or in the case of a dictatorship, what the ruler deems it to be. But a "religion" is supposed to be "given" to the people by God. I can understand that there are areas where God allows the people to interpret His word and make their own rulings. But I don't think it is considered "kosher" to totally break the law.

This is the problem I have always had with the Reform Movement and the Conservative. I don't understand how one "reforms" the word of God. You either believe it or not.
fred and murry 

Post No. 553
12/07/2006 02:02 AM
Comments (0)
whats next, pig is kosher?

Von Cello 

Post No. 552
12/06/2006 03:05 PM
Comments (0)
Vermont's Finest

He wasn't saying that that is what he believed, but what he thought George Bush believed. He happens to be a great blues bass player. He's been in the Billy Haley and the Comets band. He's an interesting guy...was a truck driver for many years and really knows the whole United States...lived in Chicago for a while...was married to a female doctor, had a kid, and got divorced. I think he's married again. We both lived in the same building in Manhattan for many years. He was the guy I picked to move me out of there. He also moved me from Dutchess County to Queens after I got married. Now he lives downtown and lives off his music. He's always giving me his opionion on the breaking news from the middle east.

By the way, he's from Vermont!
Von Cello 

Post No. 551
12/06/2006 10:28 AM
Comments (0)

I don't know why they call it "jamming", but I went to that jam last night. I drove up from mid-town through Harlem into Washington Heights and then Inwood. It's funny how to New Yorkers these neighborhoods are do distinct, yet to someone from Spain or Vermont, for example, they would all kind of look the same. But anyway, I drove up to this Irish bar with no windows, wondering if there was much going on inside. But once inside a whole world opened up. There were probably about 20 musicians jamming or waiting to jam. There was also a hoping bar scence with clients enjoying the music...sometimes even getting up in their drunkeness and dancing. It was a lot of fun.

I met a guitarist who has a connection to the band Evanesance. He said he was going to talk to them about me. Also on the gig was the drummer and bassist from Von Cello. We had keys, drums, bass, multiple guitars, trumpets, singers...and, of course, rock cello!

I left the place around 1:30 A.M. and as was leaving there were new musicians coming in! Only in Manhattan can you find such a scene in the wee hours of the morning on a weeknight!

The only political moment happened when one of the bass players who I know for a long time came over and gave me his drunk interpretation of the middle east. He said that George Bush was a genius! He managed to create a situation where the Sunnis and Shites are killing each other day after day! He thinks it is all a grand plan that will end with the Arab world attacking Israel and then Jesus coming back.


Nothing like a few beers...
fred and murry 

Post No. 550
12/06/2006 03:36 AM
Comments (0)

spain now prepares for holiday festivals and new years. Weather is atound 70 and synnu skies..Here thers no santa but instead 3 wise men on jan 7th with toys.....
Von Cello 

Post No. 549
12/05/2006 07:15 PM
Comments (0)
Tonight, tonight

Tonight they are having a big jam session at Keenans in the city at 204th St. and Broadway. I'll be there. Be there or be square.
Von Cello 

Post No. 548
12/05/2006 07:14 PM
Comments (0)

I realize that I made some broad generatlizations in that last post. Certainly not all of "the left" is anti-Israel. Certainly not all Arabs are anti-Israel. Certainly every issue is more complex than meets the eye. But it is hard to write short posts in a forum like this and qualify every statement you make. I trust that the general thrust of what I am saying is clear.
Von Cello 

Post No. 547
12/05/2006 02:20 PM
Comments (0)
Of cowboys and yarmulkas...

You bring up a good point. Why is it okay for the U.S. to exist on land that it just took from the Indians, while it is considered wrong by some people for the Jews to live in land it took from the Palestinians? You feel that many Americans think this way, including me. In my case you think I think that Israel needs a higher justification for taking the land, while the U.S. does not. But the difference is Israel didn't "take" the land away from the Palestinians.

1. The land belonged to the Jews first, and for a long time.
2. The Jews never gave up on their claim, and they instituted a religion (which much of the world accepts came from God Himself) that is centered around the promise God made to the Jews that Israel would always be theirs, even when it was temporarily given to other nations.
3. There were Jews living there in 1948, so did those Jews "take" the land from themselves? Obviously not. They already owned a lot of land there and the majority does not always rule (as in Jordan).
4. Israel was not "taken" but "given" to the Jews by the United Nations in a legal process! Israel was founded according to international law, not against it! So it is totally LEGAL for Israel to exist. Unless the law that you believe in is Sharia law, the law of the Muslims.
5. There never was a people in history called "the Palestinians". Before 1948 it was the Jews who were called Palestinians. The Arabs who lived in Palestine did not want to be associated with the Jews, so they called themselves "Arabs". Clearly they saw themselves as part of the larger Arab nation. After all, the countries of Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. were all part of the same country for centuries, the Ottoman Empire! So, in reality there was no distinct group called the "Palestinians" for the Jews to take the land away from! Furthermore, many Arabs came to Palestine from all over the Arab world around the time of 1948 in order to get work from the Jews, or to build up the ranks of their Muslim brothers.

So, your whole premise: that the Jews "took" the land away from the "Palestinians" is wrong. There does happen to be iron clad justification for the Jews to rule in the land of Israel. Indeed, much more justification than the Americans have to rule in America. But, of course, THIS is not taught in American colleges, nor is it discussed among the so called "liberals" or "leftists". They prefer to believe the myth that the Jews are ONCE AGAIN responsible for causing all kinds of trouble in the world.

This is part of why I, and many others, view "the left" as it has become, as having been hijacked by a warped, anti-Semitic ideology. The Muslims have skillfully infiltrated into many left wing organizations, and university programs. They have skillfully weaved into the fabric of Europe. They have skillfully gotten a large percentage of the "intelligencia" to believe that black is white, and up is down, and the Jews are the problem and the the Arabs are the victim. It's amazing!

It is right out of biblical prophecy about how "the nations" of the world would turn almost as one against Israel at the end of time. But the Bible also predicts to the Jews that "those who curse you will be cursed and those who bless you will be blessed". So that gives some comfort to those who believe.
fred and murry 

Post No. 546
12/05/2006 04:01 AM
Comments (0)
world wore pants

so you are saying that jews have a right to israel and this helps youslep well asit justifiesor adds rightousness to our peoplebeing there. you seem to need this historical legal biblical right to israel .itaint enough for you to simple say we are taking it cause we need a you that wouldbe belowyour ethical level of comfort
however u say that in the usa where you live theindians were massacred making a homeland for you nowadays. and this doesnt seem to bother you
why do u need 2 standards? for israeli jews the line you set is based on law bible history necesity but the line you set in the usa for yourself is lower,its based on we took it we own it.if thisis acceptable to you then why not just apply it to israel and say we took it we own it and not bother to defend our people with the more time consuming arguments based on need law bible history???
as you seem to need to believe jews are in the right in being in israel for you to feel ok you should feel sad even terrible about being in the usa as it was robbed from the natives..
You are 2 in 1 ,to feel good as a jew you need an explanation for our being in israel that must be based on a higher authority but for our being in the usa one based on we took we own it seems to fit you fine at least from what i read here
i have to tell you that you are not alone. Many usa jews are afraid of the possibilty that our people TOOK israel . when we put on the yalmukah as jews we feel a need for a higher moral level of fairness but when we put on the cowboy hat of america we aim lower.We feel a pinch of guilt but then we move on......As well you can argue that we should be allowed to keep israel cause we are there already and the owners werent really using it anyway but this is not lAW...why not havemexicans move into arizona and declare it their own cause its virtually empty today?we wouldnt accept that.all in all i consider you my teacher on issues of judaism and god .
Von Cello 

Post No. 545
12/04/2006 10:58 PM
Comments (0)
U.S. Occupation

By the way, the Europeans who came to the land later called the United States REALLY had no history on the land whatsoever. Every American, who is not a "Native American" is occupying Indian land. So, does that mean that the United States has no right to exist?

If the U.S. has a right to exist, how much more so does Israel have a right to exist? After all, the Jews had a kingdom on that land for 1,500 years...that's five times as long as the United States has been in existence. The land is full of Jewish holy sites from the Temple Mount to the Tomb of Rachel to the graves of prophets like Ezekial and Isaiah. The Jews were forced out of the land against their will. They never gave up their claim to the land. In fact, the whole Bible and the Jewish religion is based on the fact that God gave the land of Israel to the Jews as "an everlasting possession". There were almost always a certain number of Jews on that land. And the land was given to the Jews by the United Nations out of sympathy for 2,000 years of persecution culminating with the Holocaust.

Compare that to the United States where a bunch of Europeans just came across the ocean to a land that they never owned and just starting killing people and stealing their land! So how dare anyone in the United States question Israel's right to exist. I think it was Elvis who had a song that went, "Before you accuse me, you better accuse yourself".
Von Cello 

Post No. 544
12/04/2006 04:24 PM
Comments (0)
Did I miss something?

I thought I answered that.

1. If it was proven that the Israel was never the homeland of the Jews in the past, then I would agree that they would have has less of a justification to establish a country there in 1948. The reason I say "less of a justification" is because there were 65,000 Jews already living there before Israel became a Jewish state, and just on that basis alone it could be argued that they had a right to rule the land. After all, in Jordan the Hussein family which rules as kings, for Christ's sake, are from a tribe that is a minority on their land as well!

2. Even if there were no Jews that ever lived in Israel even in 1947, I would argue that the Jews would be entitled to a homeland just based on the 2,000 years of persecution they suffered in Europe and in Arab lands.

By the way, I also believe strongly that the Kurds deserve to have a homeland. Why must they be forced to live under Iraqi, Turkish, and other rule? I also believe the Tibetans should have a homeland, and that China had no right to take over their country.

And, guess what? I believe that Arabs have a right to have their own homeland. Wait a minute...they already have Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan, the gulf states, Morroco...etc., etc.!!!
fred and murry 

Post No. 543
12/04/2006 01:34 PM
Comments (0)

ok you say if the arabs arent usingit and we are and we areakready there we shouls be allowed to stay . However u knowthat by law we could be made to go.So legally you would say we get out but you would hope the sane world would negociate our staying there
however my Q is would you leave if history showed us as invaders and cause the arabs want us out? would u say that the jews altho in need have no right to stay or would you say To Hell with law and just asasinate those against you and those infavor of law. personally in sais case i would plead to the world that we need a home and are already there and altho it really belongs to the arabs we should be given it or vhance to buy it. HOWEVER if this failed would you leave or fight and say f... itall? would you go if the world said go? or would you decide the jews gotta be tough and get a homeland by hook or by crook? cut 2 the chase
Von Cello 

Post No. 542
12/04/2006 09:31 AM
Comments (0)
Good questions!

Wow, I'm impressed with those questions. I would say that if it could be proven that the Jews never had a homeland in Israel (which would mean that the Bible is a forgery) I would think that the Arabs had a much better case. Much better indeed! But since that is clearly NOT the case, the Jews have a much better case!

There are other issues though. For instance, the Arabs have around 30 countries, the Muslims even more. There are 1,000,000,000 Muslims! That's right, a billion! They collectively own land that is hundreds, if not thousands of times larger than what the Jews own. So on that basis alone I would ask why the Jews can't have the tiny little sliver of land that they now possess? Are the Arabs (and/or Muslims) so stingy? Are they so selfish? They never made much use of that land any way! Mark Twain was there about a hundred years ago and wrote about how it was one vast wasteland! The Arabs ignored it. So, clearly, until the Jews claimed it they didn't give a crap about it.

And then there is the arguement about need. The Arabs don't NEED any more land. But the Jews are in desperate NEED of the land. During W.W. II Jews escaping from Hitler were sent back to Germany by many countries, even the United States! (That is another unbelievable fact, but it is very documented.) So, we have clear proof that the Jews NEED a homeland. That is why the U.N. voted for it to begin with. At that time the whole world (except the Arab allies of Hitler) realized that the Jews desperately needed to have their homeland back.

Since that time the Arabs have attacked Israel time and time again. They almost destroyed the state in 1973. According to what I have read the U.S. did not want to come to Israel's aid, but Golda Meir threatened to us nukes, and due to that Nixon agreed to help!! Can you imagine?! If Israel did not have nukes in 1973 we might not have a state of Israel anymore!

So the situation for the Jews is still dire. The would STILL deserve the sympathy and aid of the world, even if it could be proven that the Bible is a total lie! The deserve it out of fairness, and out of need. And, in my opinion, if the so called "liberals" were really liberal and concerned about justice and the rights of minorities, and the right of peoples to live in their homelands, etc. they would strongly support Israel, as I do.
fred and murry 

Post No. 541
12/04/2006 08:44 AM
Comments (0)

would you allow us to die under any situation? would you lead us to the suicide pill? or if the onlt way to survive were rob someones homeland and make it ours and spin the situaytion to mke it look like theyre at fault would you colaborate passively actively or not at all?
fred and murry 

Post No. 540
12/04/2006 08:40 AM
Comments (0)
rod serling the twilight zone

Von Cello 

Post No. 539
12/03/2006 10:31 PM
Comments (0)
Keep Manhattan just give me that country side

I'll move on to lyrics in a minute, but I agree that there is plenty of land for everyone on this planet. Heck, have you ever been to Alaska? There's enough land up there for the whole planet.!

The middle east is very complicated. I have spent a tremendous amount of time studying it. And I have come to certain conclusions based on that knowledge. I also went to Israel for almost a month, as well as Egypt and Greece. And from all that I have seen, and all the I have read, I conclude that the Palestinians are part of the greater Arab world, and that one of the goals of the greater Arab world is to destroy Israel, or as they say it, "Throw the Jews into the sea".

I believe very strongly that this goal really has nothing to do with how much land the Jews have. It is a Muslim law that ANY land that was EVER under Muslim control must remain under Muslim control forever. (This is why Spain is also a target, but for the time being the Muslims are concentrating on other targets, like Israel and Kashmir.) It is also a Muslim belief that one can, and indeed is praiseworthy, if he kills "infidels". And they really, do believe that when they do this, and die in the process, they get a direct flight to heaven to have sex with 72 virgins.

By the way, if there is any part of what I have said that you SHOULD not believe it is that last sentence. Isn't it beyond belief that there is a religion out there that states that when you kill innocent people of other faiths you get to go to heaven to have sex! But I'm sure you know that I am not making this up. Fact is stanger than fiction.

So what am I to make of this? Do you really believe that Bin Laden would end his Jihad if we gave him a slice of Alaska? Do you believe he would call off the jihad if we gave him California? Don't you realize that he believes in killing people in the name of Allah as strongly as you believe in spreading love in the name of Jesus? If not stronger? Nothing in the world, but the total surrender of the West, and the converting of all Jews, Christians and others, would stop him.

Do you think the Palestinians are so different? Now you know that their leaders were allies with Hitler. Now you know that they quote anti-Semitic books like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in their charter. You know that they relish the killing of Jewish women and children. When Israel kills a child the government expresses deep regret and the Israeli people feel sorry. But when a Palestinian suicide bomber kills a few dozen children on a school bus, leaving others with missing arms and legs, the Palestinians dance in the street and make a hero out of the "martyr". Do you honestly think that by giving them some land they are going to stop?

I saw Jimmy Carter all over the TV this weekend. He feels that Israel is to blame for much of the violence. But I look at him in amazement. Is he blind to Muslim doctrines on killing infidels, on eternal control of any land the Muslims ever had, the suicide bombers, the making of killers into martyrs, the 72 virgins? What fantasy land is he living in? Is he a southern cracker, anti-Semite, who just speaks very well. Is he like the snake in Genesis who spoke so convincingly to Eve and got her to eat the apple that would kill her? Or is he just a misguided fool who falls for the Arab propaganda? Or is he on the payroll of Saudi Arabia? Who knows?

My point is that there are as many opinions about the middle east as there are people. And I can't expect everyone to see it my way. But all I can say is that I believe that the bottom line for the Arabs is the destruction of Israel. Any land they get they will use as bases to launch more attacks (as they already have been doing now that they got back Gaza). The issue is not land. The issue is the Muslim belief system. And until people understand this, they will be using the wrong cures for the wrong disease. Before you can cure something, you damn well better know what the disease is. That is the main problem as I see it.

As for lyrics, I just heard a tape of Led Zepplin live. Robert Plant said that the song Misty Mountain Stomp (I think that's the title) was about getting busted for drugs. I listened closely, but for the life of me I couldn't make out any of the lyrics! So there is not only the problem of hearing lyrics wrongly, but sometimes you can't make them out at all.

Post No. 538
12/03/2006 09:42 PM
Email eaburke81  go to the Homepage of eaburke81
Comments (0)
moving on but not forgetting what I've learned......

After reading the article you posted about the Grand Mufti, I will deffinately open my mind a little more towards the Arab-Israeli conflict. There is still a little voice inside of me, though, that says there's room (i.e. land) enough for everyobdy on this great big, beautiful Earth of ours.

Anyway, about your Dead Cello suites - it sounds like they're comming along fine and I hope they bring you success (as well as a few gigs here and there with Weir or Lesh like you're hoping for, or were hoping for during our interview this summer).
On the subject of lyrics, it's interesting to go back and listen more carefully to your favorite songs, isn't it? You discover so much in the song your 4th, 5th or 6th time hearing it then you do the 1st, 2nd or 3rd. For the longest time, I thought CCR's "Bad Moon Rising" was "I see a rest-room risin'..." Man, was I wrong! And then of course, there's Hendrix with "Purple Haze". The original line is "excuse me while I kiss the sky....", but so many people working with the song for comedy or otherwise have messed up that lyric since it fist aired on the radio:
"Excuse me while I kiss this guy" is once such example. Another example comes from a Cheech and Chong movie, "Nice Dreams" as I recall:
"Excuse me while I swat this fly".

I once bought a Putumayo World Music compilation of African blues artists for my dad, himself a big blues fan, for Father's Day. There was one song entitled "Kar Kar Madison", and he thought the vocalist was singing "whitey-tighty-mighty-son" on the repetitive, reggae-style chorus. If you knew my dad, you'd probably understand why he thought they were singing about underwear.
Von Cello 

Post No. 537
12/03/2006 05:35 PM
Comments (0)
Music anyone?

It feels weird to talk about music after the heavy discussions of the last few days. And I love discussing heavy issues, but on a lighter note...

Neal Goldstein...are you still out there? I have been reworking my "Dead Cello" suite and in the process read through the lyrics of "Stella Blue" again, and guess what? I now agree with your interpretation that the song is about a guitar! I never realized that the lyric said, "a broken angel sings from my guitar". I thought it said, "a broken angel sings from other times". Well! That lyric alone showed me that the song is about a guitar. Not to mention the one about "dust off those rusty strings just one more time".

This new information has made me move the focus of "Dead Cello" away from ideas about death. I also added another movement to the suite that is bright and happy, changing the whole emotion of the piece. And, to tell the truth, I think it is better now.

So here is a perfect example of how I have changed my opinion on something, and reacted accordingly.

Long live Dead Cello!
Von Cello 

Post No. 536
12/03/2006 04:20 PM
Comments (0)
No Bolgna

Whew...that was a relief! I have come into contact with many people who believe false information about Israel and the Palestinians and stick to their beliefs even in the face of evidence to the contrary. So I am very glad to see that you are not that way.

I have no problem with people having different opinions than mine. But when people refuse to change their positions when confronted with evidence to the contrary, that to me exposes a defect in their personalities. And when people have negative opinions of Jews or Israel (and I'm not saying you do) and they don't change their opinions in the face of evidence, I see them as anti-Semiites. It's not having an anti-Jewish opinion that makes someone an anti-Semite. It is the inablity to change that position in the face of evidence to the contrary that I see as anti-Semitic. The same would be true of prejudice against blacks. If someone knows very little about blacks and thinks they are unintelligent, that is not prejudice. But if such a person is confronted with evidence about the achievements of blacks in all kinds of fields of study, and he maintained his original position, that person I would consider a racist.

The facts are clear: the Palestinians were allies of the Nazis in W.W. II, and their leader, the Grand Mufti, visited Hitler and asked him to come to Palestine and commit genocide on the middle eastern Jews, as he was to the European Jews. It is also a fact, that Arafat was the protegee of the Grand Mufti. This link goes into the relationship in detail:

Here's a quote:

"The mufti died in 1974, but the al-Husseini family continues to play a central role in Palestinian affairs. The mufti's nephew Faisal al-Husseini was a leading PLO spokesmen in the territories until his death on May 31, 2001, and regularly received journalists at Orient House, the de facto (and illegal) seat of Palestinian government in predominantly Arab East Jerusalem. When the Israelis shut down Orient House in March 2002, they seized hundreds of thousands of documents that revealed that al-Husseini had been personally involved in coordinating and financing terrorist attacks against Jews.

Haj Mohammad Amin al-Husseini's vicious anti-Semitic ideology formed a lasting impression on another young Arab nationalist, who became a close confidant and ardent disciple during his postwar exile in Cairo, when al-Husseini regaled his audiences with tales of Hitler's Germany.

Born on Aug. 24, 1929, Mohammed Abd al-Rahman Abd al-Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini enrolled at Cairo University in 1951. He came not to study, but because the university had become the hotbed of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Free Officers, unabashed Nazi sympathizers who, under Nasser's leadership, went on to stage a successful coup the following year. The coup was still far off, and the younger al-Husseini shortened his name in order to disguise his family ties. Ever since then, the world has known the mufti's most famous disciple as Yasser Arafat. "

This information should be a real eye opener for you! And now you should understand why I said: *Here is where I feel there is a disconnect, not just in your thinking, but that of many left leaning Americans: if it was a good cause to "protect the oppressed Jewish, and the rest of Europe from the totalitarian ideals of the Nazis and others aligned with Hitler", why is it not STILL a good cause to protect the oppressed Jewish people from the totalitarian ideals of militant Muslims who were the allies of Hitler during W.W. II, and are openly carrying forward his anti-Semitic ideas and propaganda?*

At this point, I can only hope that you will allow this new information to affect the way you view the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Post No. 535
12/03/2006 12:05 PM
Email eaburke81  
Comments (0)

Oh, I didn't mean to offend, or "scare you" as you put it, Aaron. Your statement just seemed fictious to me so I did my best to "take a side", as it were. In the past, my parents and friends have said of me that I'm a little too nice, or know, that I'm so wooried about offending people that i don't take too strong a stand. Well, when you put the argument that the Palestinians were alligned with Hitler on the table, something in my mind seemd to say, "Ed, are you really going to believe this"? I mean, sure, I've done little research on the history of 1940's German party politcs...I mean, now that I'm out of college I'm finding it hard to know when it's appropriate to "study" such things....hell, I have not picke dup a book and read it to the end in I don't know how long.
As a stubborn Vermonter I convinced myself that such a stement couldn't be true, and perhaps i was a bit too narrow-minded. Again, I apologize if I offended you or anyone.
A bologna sandwhich sounds real good now, doesn't it?
Von Cello 

Post No. 534
12/02/2006 11:06 PM
Comments (0)
Bolgna, like truth, may be hard to swallow


Post No. 533
12/02/2006 09:46 PM
Email eaburke81  go to the Homepage of eaburke81
Comments (0)
Anyone like bologna? (The phony kind)?

Well Aaron, I must say it's good to read that you agree with me on something....for a while here I thought we never related about anything. Not that we have to agree on everything, but it's been hard for me to write something relevent or educational in this questbook.

There was something from your last posting I found odd, though.....

You wrote:

"....why is it not STILL a good cause to protect the oppressed Jewish people from the totalitarian ideals of militant Muslims who were the allies of Hitler during W.W. II...."

Of course it always a good cause to protect everyone from violence and hatred, but do you really expect me to believe that Hitler was alligend with a group of ragged Muslims from a small, back-water, little-known region of the world at that time known as Palestine?

Sure, both Nazis and muslims (extreme ones, at least) want to see an end to Isreal and the Jewish people, but I heard or read nothing in my WWII studies in High School and College that led me to belive that Palestinians were alligned with Hitler and the Axis Powers.
As I understand, Israel and Palestine had it's own troubles and quarrels over land back when Germany, France and Britain were deep into the Great War. I do not belive for a minute that the Palestinians and the German Nazi party were allies, thus I belive that the two were seperate events. You can neither do nor say anything to convince me otherwise.

Though, it has been 20 months since I graduated college....yeah, 20....scary, isn't it? It is for me!

Back to Top

Home | About Von Cello | Upcoming Gigs | Recordings | Compositions | Store
E-Mail List | Interact | Video Clips | Pictures | Links | Trademark | Musicians Only

Von Cello is incorporated in the United States of America. This web site and all its content is copyrighted. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Click here for copyright, terms of usage, and legal statements.