Thorgal Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Jews were inhabiting parts of that region before Moses. Arabs are also a mixed bag. Ever hear of "rape and pillage"? That's a large part of what has been going on among those sand dunes for thousands of years. Muhammed was leader of one band of brigands which would gallop around raping and pillaging near Medina and Mecca. Some of those raped (and doing the raping) were Jews. It's quite possible Mohammed's offspring have some Jewish blood. Here's an idea: why not find a blood type which is particular to Jews and another which is particular to Arabs. Then subject everyone in that region to mandatory blood tests. Then all those with a majority Jewish blood can get on one side of the fence, and all those who are mostly Arab can get on the other. See how ridiculous that gets? For starters, there's zero scientific difference between blood of one type and blood on the other. Secondly, even if there was, what are we supposed to do: Categorize people by the .0001 difference in blood make-up? Oh sorry, it's not physiological, it's about belief systems. Both are deists with elaborate system of myths and heroes. It's just one varies a bit from the other, if seen from the outside. In sum: all the variations of tribes (Gazan, Israeli, Arab, Persian, etc) are 100% man-made. Same for land boundaries. It's as though people were genetically inclined to make trouble whenever remotely possible. Like the drunk guy coming out of a bar late at night. He's looking for fight, and he'll probably find one (or more), even if he gets his butt kicked repeatedly. So it's possible that a native Gazan is more Jew than a randon Israeli immigrant ? If yes, why crying victory when you killed your own people but from another religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Anyone can read the interview and see that you are telling another of many whoppers, but that never stops you guys. This is the entire question and answer: Q: Did you first become communist or "new historian"? A: I have to correct something: I like life too much to be communist! I am socialist. True I am member of Hadash which is a front where you find the communist party to which I don't belong. You also find the non-Zionist Arab-Jewish group to which I belong. I think both my political commitment and historian known position developed simultaneously. And one supported the other. Because of my ideology I understood documents I saw in the archives the way I understood them, and because of the documents in the archives I became more convinced in the ideological way I took. A complicated process! Some colleague told me I ruined our cause by admitting my ideological platform. Why? Everybody in Israel and Palestine has an ideological platform. Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truthseekers. http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~censor/katz-directory/$99-11-29loos-pappe-interview.htm The political party this hypocrite belongs to: Hadash (Hebrew acronym for The Democratic Front for Peace and Equality) is an Israeli political party with roots in Communism largely supported by Israeli Arabs. Hadash is a left-wing party that, when formed in March 1977, was rooted in Israel's Communist party, the Black Panthers, and other left-wing non-communist groups. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Politics/Hadash.html. He is simply saying the same as many historians have said before. What malarkey. Only historians that ignore the facts, in favor of ideology. The same ones that you quote here every day. Most people want historians who want to tell the TRUTH and he freely admits that he is not one of them. "Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truthseekers." When the IDF shred an innocent Palestinian baby to pieces with a missile, I see it as cold blooded murder, you see it as collateral damage unfortunate only because it exposes the IDF as not quite the "most moral army in the world". The truth is the baby is still dead. So, for you, there is no real difference whether a death was caused intentionally or not? The issue with an approach that pretends to accept all relevant narratives is that ultimately it gives more credence to those explanation which lean on emotive and sensational elements. It is also, for the same reasons, susceptible to further errors due to ongoing embellishment as it gets repeated. A fine example of this, related to Pappe himself, could be found looking up Theodore Katz (again, not directly on topic, but so is most of the current debate on the New Historians). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 However, Israel came into being, it DID come into being. What is vicious and yes clearly Jew hating about the international Israel demonization movement is that they don't just want to change the regime in Israel (as during the South African struggle to end apartheid) they want Israel to END as a nation. To various degrees of course -- the more radical Islamists openly want to commit genocide of Jews. Western neo-Nazis ... same thing. More liberal "progressives" would just be happy to see Jews flee back to their imaginary other homelands, which the vast majority DO NOT HAVE. In my view these progressives are in some ways the most insidious enemies of Jews. They pose as tolerant liberals but in effect are using themselves as fellow travelers to radical Islamists and Nazis. The progressives are entirely acceptable in polite society so their message is spreading. Even in a 2 state solution the present day Israel has its own demographic Trojan Horse Sorry to disappoint you, but Israeli Arab birthrates are going down and the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community's rates are going up. There is little chance of an Arab majority in Israel. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dexterm Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Morch, “The issue with an approach that pretends to accept all relevant narratives is that ultimately it gives more credence to those explanation which lean on emotive and sensational elements.”...says who? You? “So, for you, there is no real difference whether a death was caused intentionally or not?” That is exactly why we need an independent war crimes tribunal, with which Israel will not cooperate. Let's hear narratives different from Mark Regev's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dexterm Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 However, Israel came into being, it DID come into being. What is vicious and yes clearly Jew hating about the international Israel demonization movement is that they don't just want to change the regime in Israel (as during the South African struggle to end apartheid) they want Israel to END as a nation. To various degrees of course -- the more radical Islamists openly want to commit genocide of Jews. Western neo-Nazis ... same thing. More liberal "progressives" would just be happy to see Jews flee back to their imaginary other homelands, which the vast majority DO NOT HAVE. In my view these progressives are in some ways the most insidious enemies of Jews. They pose as tolerant liberals but in effect are using themselves as fellow travelers to radical Islamists and Nazis. The progressives are entirely acceptable in polite society so their message is spreading. Even in a 2 state solution the present day Israel has its own demographic Trojan Horse Sorry to disappoint you, but Israeli Arab birthrates are going down and the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community's rates are going up. There is little chance of an Arab majority in Israel. Another fabrication? Source please. If you are right, Israel won't need a Palestinian population to hasten its collapse. It will have millions of ultra Orthodox nutjobs sponging off Israeli taxpayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Someone mentioned earlier how Israel would be gobsmacked without arms shipments from the US. Not so. Israel is one of the top arms producers in the world. So, by your admission Israel is as much, or perhaps even more, of a military power than the USA. Yet this major, advanced military power starts a war that kills almost 2,000 civilians - because, the Israelis claim, al-Qassam (Hamas military wing) fired some home made rockets that lack even primitive guidance systems. Now, do you see something wrong with this picture? I don't think anyone (but you) suggested Israel is more of a military power than the USA. Now that this faux foundation of the argument is out of the way, can head over to the next misleading bit - namely, that almost all of the casualties were civilians. There were more than "some" rockets fired (not to mention mortar fire), and I doubt you could make one of them rockets in your home. There's something wrong when posters cannot address posts without twisting words and facts. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arjunadawn Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 UC is being disingenuous, as usual, because he does not want peace.1.Recognize that the Zionists want to INCREASE their land grab. 2.Recognize that after decades of Israeli terror against the Palestinians, it is natural that there will be extreme voices. None of us can even begin to imagine what the collective punishment of generations of people will create. 3. Notice that anytime a moderate Arab voice gains prominence, the Zionists undermine them. Look at how they continually humiliate Abbas. So, UC can continue to use the Saturation technique of propaganda , but everyone knows that the Zionists cannot accept peace. It is diametrically opposed to their end vision of a greater Judea. Hence the myopic focus on the semantics of the more extreme parts of Arab opinion. If Israel really wanted peace, they could easily have it - but they want land that they believe is their by divine right, In the end, Israel wanting peace, will not be enough. No observer suggests its that simple. One of the mistakes the US made when going into Afghanistan was to see the people there as singular- Afghans! However, it is more complicated, as it is throughout the muslim world. The family extends to the extended family, which sits atop the tribal, which sits atop the regional, which sits atop the national. Wrapping all of this together is the glue of religion- Islam, which pervades every element of their life. While more advanced, the same "onion" applies to Palestinians. No matter what secular-like motions move toward peace, the legitimacy of such a peace or arrangement must- it must apply within the context of Islam, and the Islamic exegesis (as indicated below). Whether or not local moderates could encourage such a bold step, it would take place within the context of the regional- supreme religious leaders who steadfastly reject any arrangement where Israel remains a state. These mechanics simply cannot be overlooked. Whether it is Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Int Union of Muslim Scholars) in Qatar or high sunni religious leaders in SA (Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah), they want Jews dead! Qaradawi Current Mufti http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=11466 Previous Mufti http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U1FyRdUves So, even if we on TV could devise a way for "us" to meet in the middle, reflecting facts on the ground, we would then have to account for the authority that bypasses the pulpit and the bullhorns. We would have to consider the authoritative voices that speak in the mosques and these voices are fairly singular in their position. Remember, in Islam free will at the level of individual agency is kept in check by a vigorous system of peer pressure, social, and judicial mores. Few people will ever act contrary to fatwa or the express will of religious leadership. If observers here or elsewhere chose to ignore or marginalize this fact they are incompletely forming their arguments. Joepublic- #1- You may be correct; if true, its hard for me to determine if this is in pursuit of a better bargaining position later, or just an act in pursuit of a great Israel plan. I don't know. #2- This point presumes that a steady escalation in bad feelings currently motivates many or some Palestinians. In order for this point to be tested one needs to look to a point, or few points, in contemporary history and see that it was not previously this way. The fact is, from Khaybar (khaybar khaybar ya yahud) to the present day, there has been a continued pursuit of the destruction of Jews, often reflected in long intervals of relative calm punctuated with horrific acts of anti jewish cruelty. #3- No, I don't notice your point. However, regarding Abbas, Israel has few options. They need Abbas, insofar it will be possible to have him act as a representative. Failing his ability to do this, repeatedly, perhaps Israel is laboring to a point where Abbas can be replaced and someone with legitimacy from his own people can at least represent a coalition that can enter into peace talks. Things are impossibly complicated for Abbas, I realize this. Your conclusion, represented by "hence," simply misrepresents fact. The points/posts/links I and others submit in defense of our assertion that the local arabs want all Jews dead (and not the peace we imagine) in no way represents the few, extreme points of view in the local arab community. This is utter nonsense. This is the same dissembling that the West does to constantly inform the population that Islamic Jihadists are a negligible few, not representative of Islam, nor possessing any religious authority for their actions. If such things are being said by religious scholars and leaders, than there is utter certainty this is the status quo. If you would know this issue, know their religious authority structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arjunadawn Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 I agree with you in the most important part - there are no doubt elements in Hamas who want to see the death of all Jews. Who do not want to see the State of Israel. This mindset may be understandable for those who have suffered severe loss as many have, but it cannot be tolerated when the cost is the lives of other innocents in Israel and Palestine.But I think you are incorrect to attribute Hamas' popularity in Gaza with the aim of destroying Israel. Hamas gained credibility and popularity as a provider of social and health services when these were decimated by the 2001-2005 Gaza blockade (I know it isn't called a blockade, but for all intents and purposes, it was). During a time when Gaza ws being economically strangled, and poverty was increasing in Gaza, Hamas provided health clinics, schools, sporting clubs, soup kitchens etc . So of course Hamas became popular - ironically because of the actions of Israel in strangling Gaza. My hope - and this is the key point I want to make in this particular discussion - is that there were some recent actions and statements from Hamas that gave some hope that it may have moderated its views. Well, at least prior to the most recent invasion of Gaza. I don't know now. I am still stunned by Netanyahu's angry rejection of the Palestinian Unity government in April this year. That was when Hamas indicated a more moderate view - Hamas had agreed to support the Unity government that recognised Israel's right to exist, and the need for a negotiated peace based on 1967 borders. This government was temporary, until elections could be held. But even so, to have Hamas agreeing to these conditions re Israel was a very large and welcome step forward. Instead, what a wasted opportunity to build some bridges that became. Instead of using this opportunity for peace, Netanyahu used it for war. He not only refused to build bridges, he forced Hamas back into the role of bad guys. I suspect most rational human beings would want to marginalise Hamas by promoting less radical, more secular and peace oriented Palestinian groups. Not Netanyahu - he turned Hamas into heroes of resistance. So incredinly short-sighted and stupid - unless, of course, he didn't really want peace. This latest destruction of a potential for peace follows many other similar derailings engineered by Israel. Which is why I have been force to conclude that Israel is controlled by fanatic Zionists who will never be satisfied until there is no such thing as Palestine. That the West Bank and East Jerusalem will be part of Israel. And given the previous episode of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948, there is no reason to assume that any Palestinians left behind by future land grabs will not suffer a similar fate. Yes, Hamas provided services, likely genuine and necessary. As an extension of the MB they would do that, as the MB had done for many years. Undoubtedly, this is where that initial authority came from. I don't have a clue regarding the unity government rejection. I just don't know. I am aware that there are regional and global factors that we here at TV are hard pressed to distill into our final opinions; really. I don't know the calculus that goes into Hamas or Israel's deliberations, just the results. In this case we both can probably agree I have no idea why Israel pushed this most recent issue as long and as hard as they did. I know Israel must be right- every single time! We used to say (in bad places in the world) we needed to be "alert, dialed in, and correct and right EVERY SINGLE TIME! The people who want to hurt us only need to be correct one time." This is justifiably the position Israel is in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 However, Israel came into being, it DID come into being. What is vicious and yes clearly Jew hating about the international Israel demonization movement is that they don't just want to change the regime in Israel (as during the South African struggle to end apartheid) they want Israel to END as a nation. To various degrees of course -- the more radical Islamists openly want to commit genocide of Jews. Western neo-Nazis ... same thing. More liberal "progressives" would just be happy to see Jews flee back to their imaginary other homelands, which the vast majority DO NOT HAVE. In my view these progressives are in some ways the most insidious enemies of Jews. They pose as tolerant liberals but in effect are using themselves as fellow travelers to radical Islamists and Nazis. The progressives are entirely acceptable in polite society so their message is spreading. Even in a 2 state solution the present day Israel has its own demographic Trojan Horse Sorry to disappoint you, but Israeli Arab birthrates are going down and the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community's rates are going up. There is little chance of an Arab majority in Israel. Another fabrication? Source please. If you are right, Israel won't need a Palestinian population to hasten its collapse. It will have millions of ultra Orthodox nutjobs sponging off Israeli taxpayers. Actually, I think UG may be right. It's because years ago Israel recognised the trojan horse and set up initiatives to encourage and help Jewish women to have babies. It's one of the examples of how Arab Israelis are treated differently (2nd class) to Jewish Israelis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Everything is a conspiracy theory. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Post edited to indicate points of contention: 1. .... FEAR of being mass murdered based on actual evidence of Palestinian desire to do exactly that. 2. A powerful Palestinian state with intentions to win all of Jewish Israel could potentially do that. ... 3. So Palestinian recognition of Israel's right to exist in words and actions is something that actually could move things forward ... easier said than done though of course. But Netanyahu isn't Israel and Israel still IS a Jewish state. People on both sides shouldn't stop working for a two state solution ..... 1. Where is the evidence that Palestinians want to mass murder Jews? Just to help you along - Hamas is not Palestine. Fatah is not even Palestine. 2. You are, honestly, worried about a "powerful Palestinian state"? Fat chance of that while Israel has crushed Palestine economically for decades. And I will have to conclude that your paranoia is taking over again unless you can direct me to a statement from the Palestine Authority - or Fatah - that they aim to "win all of Jewish Israel". 3. Palestine has offered and still offers recognition of a right to exist of Israel. As recently as June this year. Wake up. 4. Netanyahu is the leader of Israel. More importantly, there are fellow sociopathic politicians just as nefarious as he who are ready to take his place should he fall under bus. And I am impressed that you are one of the minority of Israelis who is "working for a 2 state solution". All you have to do is to convince the land thieves to take the option seriously, and not keep using it as a diversion for ever more colonial activities. So, by your logic, if both the Fatah and the Hamas do not represent the Palestinians (or as you put it "is not Palestine"), who is Israel supposed to negotiate with? Can't have it both ways. Hamas and Fatah do represent, between then, most of the Palestinian public. Over the years there were numerous incidents of terrorist attacks, massacres and rockets attacks on Jews. These were inspired and orchestrated, in turn, by both the Fatah and the Hamas (not to mention earlier days, before the two existed). The accompanying rhetoric to these attacks is almost without change. So just to help you along, the Jewish apprehensions are well grounded. As far as I understand the claim is not that there will instantly be a "powerful Palestinian state" but weariness it should become so in the future. It can be noticed that even Hamas by itself, and operating solely from the Gaza Strip can pose a hardship for Israel. Having to deal with an extended version of the same would be much more difficult, and effectively mean all of Israel's territory would be exposed to attacks. The Fatah currently head the PA, and their claim is far from solid. New elections might very well see Hamas gain the upper hand. Regardless, some elements in the Fatah are pretty close to Hamas views when it comes to armed struggle against Israel. Certain representatives of this approach remain quite out-spoken and some are in a ringside position to play a major role once Abbas steps down. As you claim neither the Fatah nor the Hamas are "Palestine", which "Palestine" was it that offered recognition of Israel's right to exist? If this was meant to imply the PA, then the PA is effectively run by Fatah (and both do not need to offer recognition of Israel's right to exist, as they already did this - sort of the basis of current agreements in place). If you meant Hamas, then this is of course not a real proposition, but a re-hash of some misguided claims. So while Palestinian political leadership is not "Palestine", Netanyahu and other right wing politicians are somehow "Israel". Great logic at work. Again. Could you possibly name any accepted right wing leader in Israel able to unify and lead all the relevant parties into a semblance of a coalition? Or, for that matter, to be able to strike an essential coalition deal with non- right wing parties. Also, as far as I am aware JT is not Israeli, although with the way some people mix Israelis/Jews/Zionists the confusion is understandable. Quote: Who is Israel supposed to negotiate with? Well, if Netanyahu hadn't been such a war-mongerer, he could have been negotiating with the Palestinian Unity Government that was formed in April 2014 - and recognised Israel's right to exist. Sure, this was a temporary government, but that meant an even better opportunity to hold out an olive branch to influence the planned Palestinian elections. But it isn't that relevant who Israel can negotiate with - we know that Israel does not want peace. It sue is happy to have a long lasting truce - but a long lasting peace? Nope. Can't steal land anymore. BTW, Fatah and Hamas may be the major Palestinian parties, but there are about a dozen or so that contested the last elections. My personal favourite, as you already know, is the Palestinian National Initiative - a pro-peace 2 state solution party. Led by an intelligent and compassionate man of high integrity. He is the one who actually brokered the deal that led to the formation of the Palestinian Unity Government in April 2014. So, no. Fatah and Hamas may be major parties, but do not represent all Palestinians. Sure, there is not just the possibility, but the certainty that the Palestinian political scene will change over time. And this could lead to continuing, or even greater, threats to Israel. UNLESS, Israel seeks a sincere solution, and does so sooner rather than later. A just negotiated peace would weaken the militants in Palestine, and strengthen the pro-democracy forces. It's as plain as the nose on your face that Israel must choose between future security or stealing more land. While the land theft proponents rule the Israeli position, the future threats grow. Its up to Israelis - either they want their children to live in peace, or they want to attain the insane visions of obsolete religious sects. Quote: As you claim neither the Fatah nor the Hamas are "Palestine". Yes, that's right, I did. Just in case you didn't quite grab what I said above, there are over a dozen political parties in Palestine. Some - such as the PNI - should be nurtured by those in Israel who hope for a Palestine that is a good neighbour who shares the aims of peaceful coexistence. I don't deny that Hamas and Fatah are the largest parties, but it is not that simple. All the more reason why the failure to deal with the Unity Government was such a stupid move for peace-lovers in Israel. Quote: Great logic at work. Again. Thankyou for your kind and honest recognition of my talent. The responsibilities for the continued security coordination and handling the negotiations with Israel do not fall within the duties of the Unity Government, but are to be handled by Abbas himself. In the same way, the deceleration regarding the new government upholding previous agreements and acknowledging Israel was mainly carried out by Abbas. This was a way to bypass Hamas ideological issues, sort of eat the cake and leave it whole too. Pretty much the same happened on the last elections - Hamas won, but since foreign Aid was on the line, Abbas kept on talking with Israel as president. That didn't end up to well for non of the sides involved. As far as I am aware, Hamas did not officially commit to the notion of acknowledging Israel, and in fact, almost every new interview includes further rejections and vows to carry on the armed struggle. Other than not being in charge of anything to do with the negotiations, the Unity government was indeed a very temporary construct, which would prepare the ground for the new general elections. In your opinion such negotiations would have a positive effect (in terms of promoting peace seeking forces) on relationship between the sides. However, Most times when negotiations took place, was exactly when extremists did their best to thwart them by violent actions (which in turn lead to counter action and so on and so forth). For some reason, you keep on equating Israel and Netanyahu. As demonstrated in other posts, this is a very limited view of the Israeli political map, and even of the current composition of the coalition. While he does play a central role in this, his political views are by no means the only ones around. If you will recall, Israel handed back the Sinai peninsula (a tract of land larger than the West Bank), clearing off settlements and all - for a long lasting peace. Feel free to ignore this if it does not fit with your paradigm, but please avoid making unfounded claims. Worth mentioning that the Israeli Pm at the time was also right wing. The Fatah and the Hamas represented about 80% of the votes on the 2006 elections. In terms of Parliament seats this is even more pronounced (119 out of 132 seats). There are 5 more parties (including Bargouti's), each commanding a mere 1-3 seats, and 4 independent MPs. So, yes, fine - the Fatah and the Hamas do not represent ALL the Palestinians just an overwhelming majority of them. How is that "not so simple"? (while at the same time managing to find the fractured domestic politics of Israel monolithic). The rest of your argument just....bizarre. Each and every time Israel tried to mess with domestic politics of its neighbors things went pear shaped (this is mostly relevant to Lebanon and the Palestinians). For Israel to "nurture" (and how does nurturing a political party works?) a Palestinian political party would be like giving it a Kiss of Death. Reflect for a moment on how Abbas is treated for dealing with Israel. With the Palestinians having at least one sizable and established party which is sort of willing to deal, your expert advice is to wait until a a miniscule party will become prominent. Way to go if someone wishes to delay things even further. The Unity government relevance to the negotiations was dealt with above. We have no argument that, ultimately, arriving at a lasting peace agreement is in Israel's best interests (and, of course, the Palestinians as well). Where we differ is on the assessment of the Palestinian side's current ability and sincerity in actually carrying it through (note that I do not argue that the current Israeli government is ready and willing, far from it). The title of this topic points to a PR stunt aimed at domestic crowd by the Israeli Prime Minister. In the very same way, the Hamas leadership staged their own shows. I suggest that a lot of what the Palestinian leadership says about the Unity government should be taken with a grain of salt, and with the understanding that the whole thing has more to do with Palestinian domestic politics than with Israel. Making it into some sort of lost opportunity is simply a misguided notion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Making it into some sort of lost opportunity is simply a misguided notion. You are being generous as usual. It is dishonest spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Morch Posted August 30, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted August 30, 2014 What an odd thing to say, "Hamas never started a genocide." Though they consistently declare they want the death of all Jews they're not having accomplished this yet you thus gloss over their stayed goals and declare Hamas never started genocide. Because something is simply not possible you cannot therefore conclude, irrespective of their repeated stated intention, that Hamas doesn't seek genocide. Hamas argues, very effectively, in their opinion, that furthermore it's the duty of the citizens of gaza to all die in martyrdom, if necessary, in pursuit if their aims. Therefore, it's not really just the Jews this wretched outfit seeks to harm. (Links posted earlier). I believe that some early charter of Hamas called for the destruction of Israel. The usual discredited BS. It still calls for the destruction of Israel and it has NOT been rejected. The document calls for the elimination of the Jewish state, and the establishment of an Islamist society in its place. Their aim is to eliminate not only Israel, but all Jews as well and the charter makes that plain. In the years since it adopted its charter, Hamas leaders and spokesmen have reinforced its message again and again. Mahmoud Zahar said in 2006 that the group "will not change a single word in its covenant." To reinforce the point, in 2010 Zahhar said, "Our ultimate plan is [to have] Palestine in its entirety. I say this loud and clear so that nobody will accuse me of employing political tactics. We will not recognize the Israeli enemy." The Prime Minister of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, gave a rabid speech in front of thousands of supporters at Saraya Square in the Gaza Strip in March 2014. The message was that Palestinians should not and will not stop fighting through terrorist acts against the State of Israel. Haniyeh encourages Palestinians to attack innocent Israelis and says repeatedly that Hamas will NEVER recognize Israel. Hamas Spokesman Abu Zuhri: Our War Is for Liberation of Jerusalem, Not for Lifting of Blockade. August 2014 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NbRUXIXZOI UC is being disingenuous, as usual, because he does not want peace. 1.Recognize that the Zionists want to INCREASE their land grab. 2.Recognize that after decades of Israeli terror against the Palestinians, it is natural that there will be extreme voices. None of us can even begin to imagine what the collective punishment of generations of people will create. 3. Notice that anytime a moderate Arab voice gains prominence, the Zionists undermine them. Look at how they continually humiliate Abbas. So, UC can continue to use the Saturation technique of propaganda , but everyone knows that the Zionists cannot accept peace. It is diametrically opposed to their end vision of a greater Judea. Hence the myopic focus on the semantics of the more extreme parts of Arab opinion. If Israel really wanted peace, they could easily have it - but they want land that they believe is their by divine right, How, exactly, is Israel increasing its territory by handing control over some of the West Bank to the Palestinians, or by its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, or by withdrawing from Southern Lebanon, or by giving the Sinai Peninsula? Present day Israel is way smaller than the post-1967 Israel. Palestinian attacks on Jews predate the formation of Israel. Muslim attitude and teachings with regard to Jews on this this front predate the Palestinians. Netanyahu is mistreating Abbas, fair enough. However, many in Israel feel this is a mistake (and yes, they are still Zionist all the same). On the other hand, this is pretty mild compared to some of the things said about him by Hamas and certain factions in the Fatah. Greater Judea? Far as I recall the term was "Greater Israel", and that too is long gone. When was the last time any leader of consequence made specific reference to it? Israel could not easily have peace no matter what, even if the current government was into that. Your assertion that there is a total overlap between Israel and the current government is absurd. The notion that all Israelis are believers (or that they all believe in the sam e God) is ridiculous. Hamas never ever talked about peace with Israel. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 I have strong opinions but please, take a chance and presume I am an honest person. I don't employ tactics to avoid unsettling facts. When you present such a cogent and earnest post as above you really do make a difference, in me anyway- and we both know how unwavering I am in condemning Hamas. I asked myself a question while reading your above post: "What if I actually am not seeing, and they are equally as culpable, and equally to blame in thwarting events on the ground?" (I realize your point is not shared blame, but for me, reaching you half way across the mental table and considering this was a big step). So, what do i find? Well, I can overall speak with great conviction that the aim of Hamas is the death of all Jews, irrespective of whether a State of Israel is or not. There is simply no amount of data or dissembling that can mitigate Hamas' consistent, declared, and scripturally cited authority in seeking the annihilation of Jews- period! What folks tend to miss is Hamas could not have any legitimacy without that core theme- killing Jews. If Hamas ever notes a possibility of shared existence with Jews it must be probed because the only conditions in which Jews can live beside Muslims are as Dhimmis- period! (It is simply not possible to envision from Hamas the motives you asign to them; they would be eaten alive in the muslim world. Near history will prove me right, I fear). So, yes, there may be snippets of possible coexistence coming from Hamas (See for example recent Hamas leadership interview with Charlie Rose where this point was basically conceded; Jews must live as dhimmis to coexist). However, when you toss hand grenades of comparable "facts" at me exposing, perhaps, Israel in a light I had not considered, it does have an effect- the effect you desired. It will cause me to look more deeply. Perhaps at this point in my life, with my strong opinions formed, I can take a break from constantly reinforcing my opinion with endless points that confirm what I already believe, and perhaps look more closely at the things you say above. I suspect there is more than just smoke with regard to those on this forum who insist Israel is not without significant blame. To what extent I am unsure. But as regards to thwarting peace efforts, or the desire toward a two state solution, etc., I will look more closely at your point. It is overwhelmingly apparent, irrespective of interpretation of the Hamas charter, etc., that Hamas seeks total oblivion of the Jews. This is such a demonstrable fact that I no longer turn to western media niches to pick up on this rather I just turn to the various MidEast news/translation services online that give me HamasTV and related Palestinian TV in real time. When one listens to the actual words of the spokesmen and leaders of Hamas it is beyond interpretation their aims. Listen to what they say to each other. It is to whom they speak their relative authority comes. (I have posted ample and relevant links previously regarding this- these links are Hamas in their own voice, NOW). I recognise and acknowledge your sincerity - and your valued contributions to questions of scripture and history. So if I have come across as too impolite I am indeed sorry. I agree with you in the most important part - there are no doubt elements in Hamas who want to see the death of all Jews. Who do not want to see the State of Israel. This mindset may be understandable for those who have suffered severe loss as many have, but it cannot be tolerated when the cost is the lives of other innocents in Israel and Palestine. But I think you are incorrect to attribute Hamas' popularity in Gaza with the aim of destroying Israel. Hamas gained credibility and popularity as a provider of social and health services when these were decimated by the 2001-2005 Gaza blockade (I know it isn't called a blockade, but for all intents and purposes, it was). During a time when Gaza ws being economically strangled, and poverty was increasing in Gaza, Hamas provided health clinics, schools, sporting clubs, soup kitchens etc . So of course Hamas became popular - ironically because of the actions of Israel in strangling Gaza. My hope - and this is the key point I want to make in this particular discussion - is that there were some recent actions and statements from Hamas that gave some hope that it may have moderated its views. Well, at least prior to the most recent invasion of Gaza. I don't know now. I am still stunned by Netanyahu's angry rejection of the Palestinian Unity government in April this year. That was when Hamas indicated a more moderate view - Hamas had agreed to support the Unity government that recognised Israel's right to exist, and the need for a negotiated peace based on 1967 borders. This government was temporary, until elections could be held. But even so, to have Hamas agreeing to these conditions re Israel was a very large and welcome step forward. Instead, what a wasted opportunity to build some bridges that became. Instead of using this opportunity for peace, Netanyahu used it for war. He not only refused to build bridges, he forced Hamas back into the role of bad guys. I suspect most rational human beings would want to marginalise Hamas by promoting less radical, more secular and peace oriented Palestinian groups. Not Netanyahu - he turned Hamas into heroes of resistance. So incredinly short-sighted and stupid - unless, of course, he didn't really want peace. This latest destruction of a potential for peace follows many other similar derailings engineered by Israel. Which is why I have been force to conclude that Israel is controlled by fanatic Zionists who will never be satisfied until there is no such thing as Palestine. That the West Bank and East Jerusalem will be part of Israel. And given the previous episode of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948, there is no reason to assume that any Palestinians left behind by future land grabs will not suffer a similar fate. What recent statements by Hamas lead you to believe that they have moderated their views? By actions supposedly indicating a moderated approach you probably mean the Unity Government thing. Well, again - the main catalyst was economic. With Egypt clamping down on smuggling operations, Hamas could not simply afford the cost anymore, not even for salaries (which was the main leverage point Abbas and the Fatah had). The Unity government was not about Israel as such, and is largely irrelevant to negotiations (which will continue being handled by Abbas). There was even no need for Hamas to officially change its stance toward Israel (which it did not). It all bears a certain similarity with the way things panned out after the 2006 Hamas victory. Abbas remains as head of state and deals with Israel, although not representing majority vote, Hamas stays in the background and remains officially uncommitted. The Unity government itself did not recognize Israel. The recognition of Israel by the PA is a done thing. The one who said them words was Abbas (at the inauguration/presentation ceremony). Hamas did no such thing. Even going this far was a humiliation of sorts for them. Israel's reaction (in this case, a bit broader based than just Netanyahu and the right wing) was understandable and justified if not done in the smartest way possible. The Hamas cannot be made into something it is not by Abbas playing spokesman. The act of publicly dropping the armed struggle option is an essential component to any conduct of peace negotiations - it was the same with Egypt, Jordan and the PLO. That is not to say that Israel's current government was looking forward to make peace before the Unity government thing. Of course it was picked as an excuse (or reason, whatever suits one's taste) to derail negotiations (not that they were on track) with the Palestinians further. But it was no missed chance for peace, just another episode in the bumbling way things are being run by leaderships of both sides. As opposed to your view of Netanyahu as someone capable of planning such moves ahead, and predict their outcome, the way he is often depicted (and rightly so) in Israeli media and public is as a smooth talker who reacts to situations rather than creates them. My take on the way things developed was that each side miscalculated the other side's reaction and with the ever present domestic pressures, an unstable situation came to ahead. Attributing well laid plans and intentions is giving to much credit where it is not due. Stupidity and short-sightedness are indeed far more prevalent than people assume. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBR250 Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Yet the conclusion is actually all the matters. In light of my deep seated knowledge (yes, I am sure I possess) regarding Islam I just cant see how any of this is but re arranging furniture on the titanic. Yes, it must be done if there is even a sliver of hope for peace. But if Israel realizes what I realize I would not be surprised the well is being poisoned; perhaps. Yes, I agree to a large extent. I am not over-confident about the possibilities of peace with the increasing influence of more radical and fundamentalist groups in Gaza, especially when we have an Israel ruled by fanatics as well. But focusing for a moment on the Palestinian side - I don't think Islam itself is the problem (although I acknowledge that you seem to have a much greater knowledge of the religion than I). I think the twisting of Islam to suit the agendas of power-hungry fundamentalists and/or angry people is where the fault lies, not in the religion itself. The same as I don't believe that the Jewish religion is the problem, but that in Israel it has been hijacked by power-hungry fundamentalists with delusions of both grandeur and persecution. If we look at the sermons of priests and vicars during the Troubles in Ireland we find the same twisted use of religion, so it is not restricted to the Middle East, nor Islam and Judaism. The fundamental flaw is one of human nature, not religion. The faded, jaded optimism I cling to is based on meetings I had with a number of Palestinian people (some Muslims, some agnostic, some atheist) over 10 years ago - including Mustafa Baghouti, who I have mentioned previously as a Palestine peace activist who is worthy of admiration. I know these Palestinian people haven't changed in any fundamental way. Sure there has been considerable change in other elements of Palestinian society, but I do maintain my hope that the qualities of integrity and compassion the Palestinians I know exhibited can still guide the future of their people. Baghouti and others like him continue to struggle to set the agenda in Palestine. Likewise, there are Israelis who demonstrate similar qualities to Baghouti, and who struggle to shift the agenda of Netanyahu. But as we have seen just now with what happened in Gaza, both groups have failed to have sufficient impact. And I maintain that the largest share of the responsibility for this rests with Israel, especially given the circumstances that led to this latest war in Gaza. The biggest kid on the block must always be the one to kick start peace - or who kick starts war. Israel could create the momentum that those concerned with peace in Palestine would benefit from. But under the present regime of people such as Lieberman and Netanyahu it chooses the alternative, leading to the deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinians, and dozens of well-meaning Israeli patriots whose lives have been sacrificed for the egos and agendas of fanatics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Morch, “The issue with an approach that pretends to accept all relevant narratives is that ultimately it gives more credence to those explanation which lean on emotive and sensational elements.”...says who? You? “So, for you, there is no real difference whether a death was caused intentionally or not?” That is exactly why we need an independent war crimes tribunal, with which Israel will not cooperate. Let's hear narratives different from Mark Regev's How about quoting the post you're replying to? Makes it both easier to relate and does not leave out parts of it: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/755451-netanyahu-declares-victory-in-gaza/page-10#entry8319124 No, can't take credit for this notion, it is taught in many history departments, as part of classes which talk about theory of historical research and such. Alternatively, there are instances which are pretty much the same dealt with in cognitive and social psychology. Applications for mass communication and political science exist as well, of course. The level of independence and lack of bias expressed by some of the relevant agencies makes the prospect of even handed justice a rather problematic issue. There is a lot of talk about Israel not cooperating with such investigations, but relatively less stress on the difficulties of conducting such investigations in Gaza while under Hamas rule, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 However, Israel came into being, it DID come into being. What is vicious and yes clearly Jew hating about the international Israel demonization movement is that they don't just want to change the regime in Israel (as during the South African struggle to end apartheid) they want Israel to END as a nation. To various degrees of course -- the more radical Islamists openly want to commit genocide of Jews. Western neo-Nazis ... same thing. More liberal "progressives" would just be happy to see Jews flee back to their imaginary other homelands, which the vast majority DO NOT HAVE. In my view these progressives are in some ways the most insidious enemies of Jews. They pose as tolerant liberals but in effect are using themselves as fellow travelers to radical Islamists and Nazis. The progressives are entirely acceptable in polite society so their message is spreading. Even in a 2 state solution the present day Israel has its own demographic Trojan Horse Sorry to disappoint you, but Israeli Arab birthrates are going down and the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community's rates are going up. There is little chance of an Arab majority in Israel. Another fabrication? Source please. If you are right, Israel won't need a Palestinian population to hasten its collapse. It will have millions of ultra Orthodox nutjobs sponging off Israeli taxpayers. Not a fabrication at all. Birth rates are even going down for the Palestinians (at least in the West Bank). The reasons are improved levels of education, economic considerations and changing social norm. The second part of your post is essentially correct, if exaggerated. There is an attempt to address this problem, started by the current government and going slow, which aims at achieving a higher level of social integration and production in this sector. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Even in a 2 state solution the present day Israel has its own demographic Trojan Horse Sorry to disappoint you, but Israeli Arab birthrates are going down and the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community's rates are going up. There is little chance of an Arab majority in Israel. Another fabrication? Source please. If you are right, Israel won't need a Palestinian population to hasten its collapse. It will have millions of ultra Orthodox nutjobs sponging off Israeli taxpayers. Actually, I think UG may be right. It's because years ago Israel recognised the trojan horse and set up initiatives to encourage and help Jewish women to have babies. It's one of the examples of how Arab Israelis are treated differently (2nd class) to Jewish Israelis. Why would that be? Arab Israelis get these government aid funds as well. Has to do more with how many kids a family supports, with the two main group being Arabs and Orthodox Jews. If there's a discrimination here it is against secular Jews, who basically pay for all this. The horse trading on this issue got more to do with forming political coalitions then with economic viability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post CBR250 Posted August 30, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted August 30, 2014 (edited) How, exactly, is Israel increasing its territory by handing control over some of the West Bank to the Palestinians, or by its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, or by withdrawing from Southern Lebanon, or by giving the Sinai Peninsula? Present day Israel is way smaller than the post-1967 Israel. "Handing control over some of the West Bank to Palestinians". Oh joy. Maybe next Israel may consider giving Palestine back some of their stolen land to have control over. And "withdrawal from Gaza" indeed. More hasbaric spin. You make it sound like Israel was being a responsible Catholic and practicing the rhythm method. The reality - as I am sure you know - is that Israel was forced to leave the Gaza strip because it had become far too expensive and contentious to have to maintain substantial IDF forces to protect the few ratbag settlers who were the advance troops of the colonists. You could play cricket for England, you know. The public has been bemoaning the lack of a good spinner in the side. Edited August 30, 2014 by CBR250 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dexterm Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Morch, “The issue with an approach that pretends to accept all relevant narratives is that ultimately it gives more credence to those explanation which lean on emotive and sensational elements.”...says who? You? “So, for you, there is no real difference whether a death was caused intentionally or not?” That is exactly why we need an independent war crimes tribunal, with which Israel will not cooperate. Let's hear narratives different from Mark Regev's How about quoting the post you're replying to? Makes it both easier to relate and does not leave out parts of it: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/755451-netanyahu-declares-victory-in-gaza/page-10#entry8319124 No, can't take credit for this notion, it is taught in many history departments, as part of classes which talk about theory of historical research and such. Alternatively, there are instances which are pretty much the same dealt with in cognitive and social psychology. Applications for mass communication and political science exist as well, of course. The level of independence and lack of bias expressed by some of the relevant agencies makes the prospect of even handed justice a rather problematic issue. There is a lot of talk about Israel not cooperating with such investigations, but relatively less stress on the difficulties of conducting such investigations in Gaza while under Hamas rule, for example. It doesn't help investigations when Israel would not even allow Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch to enter Gaza. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.611015 If the IDF (from the democratic freedom loving state of Israel) has nothing to hide, why not allow soldiers to testify. Let respected jurists adjudicate with all the evidence at their disposal. According to your paranoid notion that all other agencies must be biased, you are left with Mark Regev's sole emotive narrative. But the truth will out ultimately with much braver IDF soldiers bringing more honor to the state of Israel by speaking out about what really happened http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 You could play cricket for England, you know. The public has been bemoaning the lack of a good spinner in the side. Well, don't apply for the job. You are quite the spinner, but not an effective one. Your team always loses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dexterm Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) How, exactly, is Israel increasing its territory by handing control over some of the West Bank to the Palestinians, or by its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, or by withdrawing from Southern Lebanon, or by giving the Sinai Peninsula? Present day Israel is way smaller than the post-1967 Israel. "Handing control over some of the West Bank to Palestinians". Oh joy. Maybe next Israel may consider giving Palestine back some of their stolen land to have control over. And "withdrawal from Gaza" indeed. More hasbaric spin. You make it sound like Israel was being a responsible Catholic and practicing the rhythm method. The reality - as I am sure you know - is that Israel was forced to leave the Gaza strip because it had become far too expensive and contentious to have to maintain substantial IDF forces to protect the few ratbag settlers who were the advance troops of the colonists. You could play cricket for England, you know. The public has been bemoaning the lack of a good spinner in the side. Present day Israel is way smaller than the post-1967 Israel. ...and present day Israel is much bigger than 1947 Israel! The Palestinians are compromising hugely already agreeing to 67 borders (incl land swaps). It's like stealing someone's house, holding onto it but allowing the victims to camp out in the back garden. I am amazed that someone such as yourself who professes to be educated on the subject, could dish up such naive baloney spin. Edited August 31, 2014 by dexterm 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ulysses G. Posted August 31, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted August 31, 2014 Present day Israel is way smaller than the post-1967 Israel. ...and present day Israel is much bigger than 1947 Israel! The Palestinians are compromising hugely already agreeing to 67 borders (incl land swaps). How are the Palestinians "compromising"? They REFUSED the 1947 borders and declared war on Israel. Losers can't be choosers. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arjunadawn Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Yet the conclusion is actually all the matters. In light of my deep seated knowledge (yes, I am sure I possess) regarding Islam I just cant see how any of this is but re arranging furniture on the titanic. Yes, it must be done if there is even a sliver of hope for peace. But if Israel realizes what I realize I would not be surprised the well is being poisoned; perhaps. Yes, I agree to a large extent. I am not over-confident about the possibilities of peace with the increasing influence of more radical and fundamentalist groups in Gaza, especially when we have an Israel ruled by fanatics as well. But focusing for a moment on the Palestinian side - I don't think Islam itself is the problem (although I acknowledge that you seem to have a much greater knowledge of the religion than I). I think the twisting of Islam to suit the agendas of power-hungry fundamentalists and/or angry people is where the fault lies, not in the religion itself. The same as I don't believe that the Jewish religion is the problem, but that in Israel it has been hijacked by power-hungry fundamentalists with delusions of both grandeur and persecution. If we look at the sermons of priests and vicars during the Troubles in Ireland we find the same twisted use of religion, so it is not restricted to the Middle East, nor Islam and Judaism. The fundamental flaw is one of human nature, not religion. The faded, jaded optimism I cling to is based on meetings I had with a number of Palestinian people (some Muslims, some agnostic, some atheist) over 10 years ago - including Mustafa Baghouti, who I have mentioned previously as a Palestine peace activist who is worthy of admiration. I know these Palestinian people haven't changed in any fundamental way. Sure there has been considerable change in other elements of Palestinian society, but I do maintain my hope that the qualities of integrity and compassion the Palestinians I know exhibited can still guide the future of their people. Baghouti and others like him continue to struggle to set the agenda in Palestine. Likewise, there are Israelis who demonstrate similar qualities to Baghouti, and who struggle to shift the agenda of Netanyahu. But as we have seen just now with what happened in Gaza, both groups have failed to have sufficient impact. And I maintain that the largest share of the responsibility for this rests with Israel, especially given the circumstances that led to this latest war in Gaza. The biggest kid on the block must always be the one to kick start peace - or who kick starts war. Israel could create the momentum that those concerned with peace in Palestine would benefit from. But under the present regime of people such as Lieberman and Netanyahu it chooses the alternative, leading to the deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinians, and dozens of well-meaning Israeli patriots whose lives have been sacrificed for the egos and agendas of fanatics. The difference is they are not using a false, "twisted use of religion." Their citations are specific. Moreover, Islamic history and Jurisprudence is largely filled with precedents for most things happening today in the middle east. Through scriptural exegesis (most of it long closed), fatwa, and practice they have a highly developed, if repugnant structure for the conduct of life. People do not wildly make citations that is not based in sharia. Otherwise, irrespective who they were, they would be hunted down and stoned. But they always make citation. When they speak to each other they must cite authority. Listen! The unpleasant nature of really understanding the underlying motivations and obligations is distasteful; it causes one to view people in a way that is... frightening. Their purpose is Allah, their method is war, their aim is Shariah, their bodies are irrelevant, and Jihad is their vehicle. Gosh, it nearly reads like one of those drone cults in a B movie, like Conan the Barbarian or the Temple of Doom but this is precisely the case. It is not related to Gaza or the Levant; this is a symptom. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Yet the conclusion is actually all the matters. In light of my deep seated knowledge (yes, I am sure I possess) regarding Islam I just cant see how any of this is but re arranging furniture on the titanic. Yes, it must be done if there is even a sliver of hope for peace. But if Israel realizes what I realize I would not be surprised the well is being poisoned; perhaps. Yes, I agree to a large extent. I am not over-confident about the possibilities of peace with the increasing influence of more radical and fundamentalist groups in Gaza, especially when we have an Israel ruled by fanatics as well. But focusing for a moment on the Palestinian side - I don't think Islam itself is the problem (although I acknowledge that you seem to have a much greater knowledge of the religion than I). I think the twisting of Islam to suit the agendas of power-hungry fundamentalists and/or angry people is where the fault lies, not in the religion itself. The same as I don't believe that the Jewish religion is the problem, but that in Israel it has been hijacked by power-hungry fundamentalists with delusions of both grandeur and persecution. If we look at the sermons of priests and vicars during the Troubles in Ireland we find the same twisted use of religion, so it is not restricted to the Middle East, nor Islam and Judaism. The fundamental flaw is one of human nature, not religion. The faded, jaded optimism I cling to is based on meetings I had with a number of Palestinian people (some Muslims, some agnostic, some atheist) over 10 years ago - including Mustafa Baghouti, who I have mentioned previously as a Palestine peace activist who is worthy of admiration. I know these Palestinian people haven't changed in any fundamental way. Sure there has been considerable change in other elements of Palestinian society, but I do maintain my hope that the qualities of integrity and compassion the Palestinians I know exhibited can still guide the future of their people. Baghouti and others like him continue to struggle to set the agenda in Palestine. Likewise, there are Israelis who demonstrate similar qualities to Baghouti, and who struggle to shift the agenda of Netanyahu. But as we have seen just now with what happened in Gaza, both groups have failed to have sufficient impact. And I maintain that the largest share of the responsibility for this rests with Israel, especially given the circumstances that led to this latest war in Gaza. The biggest kid on the block must always be the one to kick start peace - or who kick starts war. Israel could create the momentum that those concerned with peace in Palestine would benefit from. But under the present regime of people such as Lieberman and Netanyahu it chooses the alternative, leading to the deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinians, and dozens of well-meaning Israeli patriots whose lives have been sacrificed for the egos and agendas of fanatics. The difference is they are not using a false, "twisted use of religion." Their citations are specific. Moreover, Islamic history and Jurisprudence is largely filled with precedents for most things happening today in the middle east. Through scriptural exegesis (most of it long closed), fatwa, and practice they have a highly developed, if repugnant structure for the conduct of life. People do not wildly make citations that is not based in sharia. Otherwise, irrespective who they were, they would be hunted down and stoned. But they always make citation. When they speak to each other they must cite authority. Listen! The unpleasant nature of really understanding the underlying motivations and obligations is distasteful; it causes one to view people in a way that is... frightening. Their purpose is Allah, their method is war, their aim is Shariah, their bodies are irrelevant, and Jihad is their vehicle. Gosh, it nearly reads like one of those drone cults in a B movie, like Conan the Barbarian or the Temple of Doom but this is precisely the case. It is not related to Gaza or the Levant; this is a symptom. Actually, have you considered that you too might also read like one of those drone cults? I ask this with the confidence that I can cite numerous examples from this forum, but also with the confidence that you, as you so often claim, accept different views for contemplation and consideration of their validity or otherwise, and thus will take my observation for what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arjunadawn Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Yes, I agree to a large extent. I am not over-confident about the possibilities of peace with the increasing influence of more radical and fundamentalist groups in Gaza, especially when we have an Israel ruled by fanatics as well.But focusing for a moment on the Palestinian side - I don't think Islam itself is the problem (although I acknowledge that you seem to have a much greater knowledge of the religion than I). I think the twisting of Islam to suit the agendas of power-hungry fundamentalists and/or angry people is where the fault lies, not in the religion itself. The same as I don't believe that the Jewish religion is the problem, but that in Israel it has been hijacked by power-hungry fundamentalists with delusions of both grandeur and persecution. If we look at the sermons of priests and vicars during the Troubles in Ireland we find the same twisted use of religion, so it is not restricted to the Middle East, nor Islam and Judaism. The fundamental flaw is one of human nature, not religion. The faded, jaded optimism I cling to is based on meetings I had with a number of Palestinian people (some Muslims, some agnostic, some atheist) over 10 years ago - including Mustafa Baghouti, who I have mentioned previously as a Palestine peace activist who is worthy of admiration. I know these Palestinian people haven't changed in any fundamental way. Sure there has been considerable change in other elements of Palestinian society, but I do maintain my hope that the qualities of integrity and compassion the Palestinians I know exhibited can still guide the future of their people. Baghouti and others like him continue to struggle to set the agenda in Palestine. Likewise, there are Israelis who demonstrate similar qualities to Baghouti, and who struggle to shift the agenda of Netanyahu. But as we have seen just now with what happened in Gaza, both groups have failed to have sufficient impact. And I maintain that the largest share of the responsibility for this rests with Israel, especially given the circumstances that led to this latest war in Gaza. The biggest kid on the block must always be the one to kick start peace - or who kick starts war. Israel could create the momentum that those concerned with peace in Palestine would benefit from. But under the present regime of people such as Lieberman and Netanyahu it chooses the alternative, leading to the deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinians, and dozens of well-meaning Israeli patriots whose lives have been sacrificed for the egos and agendas of fanatics. You make it sound easier than it is. Does Israel just have to announce it wants peace? you make it sound this simple; and it is not. You don't attach all the many things that would be contingent on even this profound, declared good will. Peace is not reached from a position of weakness, only strength- If Israel says lets discuss peace NOW- today, in Ramallah, Jeru, wherever, after a pause from shock there will be implicit and explicit attachments. Why? Because the only reason, from an arab mind, that someone with strength seeks peace, is because they lack the strength! The muslim cosmology does not work the same way as the western mind. It just has a very different perspective on which it views the world. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBR250 Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 The difference is they are not using a false, "twisted use of religion." Their citations are specific. Moreover, Islamic history and Jurisprudence is largely filled with precedents for most things happening today in the middle east. Through scriptural exegesis (most of it long closed), fatwa, and practice they have a highly developed, if repugnant structure for the conduct of life. People do not wildly make citations that is not based in sharia. Otherwise, irrespective who they were, they would be hunted down and stoned. But they always make citation. When they speak to each other they must cite authority. Listen! The unpleasant nature of really understanding the underlying motivations and obligations is distasteful; it causes one to view people in a way that is... frightening. Their purpose is Allah, their method is war, their aim is Shariah, their bodies are irrelevant, and Jihad is their vehicle. Gosh, it nearly reads like one of those drone cults in a B movie, like Conan the Barbarian or the Temple of Doom but this is precisely the case. It is not related to Gaza or the Levant; this is a symptom. Anyone can twist religion. It doesn't make the religion the culprit, it is the twister who is at fault. In the Tanach (or Bible for Christians) there are numerous verses which can be, and have been, used to justify horrific behaviour: "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;" (Deuteronomy 13: 6) "Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." (Deuteronomy 13:8-9) (http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible3.htm#decapitate-them) And yes, your last paragraph does read like a B-grade movie script. Muslims that I know would not recognise this statement as belonging to their religion. That's not to say that there are not other Muslims who may adhere to this warlike interpretation. The same as there are Jewish rabbis who call for the killing of innocent women and children. Rabbi Dov Lior claims that Jewish Law justifies the destruction of the whole Gaza strip. (http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Rabbi-Lior-Jewish-law-permits-destruction-of-Gaza-to-bring-safety-to-Israel-368605) So, yes, the behaviour which we both abhor is a symptom, but not a symptom of Islam. Rather, it is a symptom of growth of that dark side of humanity that is always amongst us. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arjunadawn Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) The difference is they are not using a false, "twisted use of religion." Their citations are specific. Moreover, Islamic history and Jurisprudence is largely filled with precedents for most things happening today in the middle east. Through scriptural exegesis (most of it long closed), fatwa, and practice they have a highly developed, if repugnant structure for the conduct of life. People do not wildly make citations that is not based in sharia. Otherwise, irrespective who they were, they would be hunted down and stoned. But they always make citation. When they speak to each other they must cite authority. Listen! The unpleasant nature of really understanding the underlying motivations and obligations is distasteful; it causes one to view people in a way that is... frightening. Their purpose is Allah, their method is war, their aim is Shariah, their bodies are irrelevant, and Jihad is their vehicle. Gosh, it nearly reads like one of those drone cults in a B movie, like Conan the Barbarian or the Temple of Doom but this is precisely the case. It is not related to Gaza or the Levant; this is a symptom. Anyone can twist religion. It doesn't make the religion the culprit, it is the twister who is at fault. In the Tanach (or Bible for Christians) there are numerous verses which can be, and have been, used to justify horrific behaviour: "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;" (Deuteronomy 13: 6) "Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." (Deuteronomy 13:8-9) (http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible3.htm#decapitate-them) And yes, your last paragraph does read like a B-grade movie script. Muslims that I know would not recognise this statement as belonging to their religion. That's not to say that there are not other Muslims who may adhere to this warlike interpretation. The same as there are Jewish rabbis who call for the killing of innocent women and children. Rabbi Dov Lior claims that Jewish Law justifies the destruction of the whole Gaza strip. (http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Rabbi-Lior-Jewish-law-permits-destruction-of-Gaza-to-bring-safety-to-Israel-368605) So, yes, the behaviour which we both abhor is a symptom, but not a symptom of Islam. Rather, it is a symptom of growth of that dark side of humanity that is always amongst us. Its highly unlikely I am suggesting my last paragraph reads like a B grade movie script rather the cast of assembled characters and their primeval urge to blood, blood sacrifice, murder, torture, mayhem, and all the while declaring the contradictory nature of peace and love and submission. This reads like the bad movie script. Your example from the pentatuch (?) is valid; but only to illustrate my point. The nature of these differing faiths nearly follows opposite paths. Whereas the Judaic tradition generally reflects man's conception of god as the best conception of self, the nature of God changed over varying dispensations, this one quoted above being Adamic dispensation/covenant (I believe). As the society in which the Jews lived- indeed, the world- changed and became more evolved, so too did that which God demanded. Perhaps coincidence. You will find far less stern admonishments over Jewish biblical time, even through the Mosaic Covenant/Dispensation (reduced to only ten rules). This tendency from the primitive to the elevated found continued expression until Yeushu ben joseph and the christian covenant (a further covenant/dispensation moving aggressively further still toward right action and right life), reject by jews, accepted by gentiles. A progress line of revelation, leading man from the dark to the light, is set forth over these millennia. Yet this tendency to evolve toward the good is not found in Islamic exegesis. In fact it is just the reverse. The koran generally starts from positions of tolerance and love and warmth and digresses into utter savagery as the best example of the moral and upright man. (As each sura builds its authority over the previous, and all were written relative to the passing of real time. As time passed in the life of the prophet more and more peoples were attacked, raped, raped in front of their husbands, beheaded, put to the sword, or as the prophet indicated, struck on the neck. Entire tribes raped, butchered, stolen into slavery, as this, in Islam, the latest evolution of the Adamic Covenant- REMEMBER, ISLAM HAS THE SAME CHAIN OF PROPHETS). So, too it is likely that these expectations of their gods reflected the social evolution of the peoples in who said prophecy derived- arabs. Therefore, when the era of the prophet ended, they found in this inversely developed character of a man the ultimate expression of the ideal man. When the prophet ended the book was closed- the book was closed as no man could ever come again to equal or exceed the virtue of this man, who inverted the progression of dispensations and covenants, turned the clock thousands of years into antiquity- died! and left us stuck in the era of the very first Adamic covenant that the Jews had long since passed. Your comparison is valid, but only if incidentally considering a narrow bandwidth of time. There is no practical Torah exegesis that can justify that passage today. And yet they do, you insist? Well, this is not the core, rather its interpretation by a few-I assume as declared by the majority? In the case of Islam, it is the majority that reinforces the few, as you think, extreme expressions of Islam. They are not incorrectly citing verse and hadith. You are flat out mistaken to make this error in reasoning. I have simply not seen incorrectly cited authorities for jihadi actions. This is the context that the Israeli PM operates in. It is not possible to cite to me absurd ideas such as the few ruining it for all muslims, or they are extremists, or they don't represent... nonsense. BTW- The people are not the problem; "the culprit." Edited August 31, 2014 by arjunadawn 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post dexterm Posted August 31, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted August 31, 2014 Present day Israel is way smaller than the post-1967 Israel. ...and present day Israel is much bigger than 1947 Israel! The Palestinians are compromising hugely already agreeing to 67 borders (incl land swaps). How are the Palestinians "compromising"? They REFUSED the 1947 borders and declared war on Israel. Losers can't be choosers. OK , putting aside for the moment previous details of the Zionist rejection of the Peel Commission’s very generous partition plan of 1937, which UG euphemistically calls “seeking clarification for a better deal”. Although Ben Gurion knew very well the consequences of the Zionist delaying tactics. "Had partition [referring to the Peel Commission partition plan] been carried out, the history of our people would have been different and six million Jews in Europe would not have been killed---most of them would be in Israel" (“One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate” by Tom Segev p. 414). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission ... all because of Zionist greed. When Zionists learn to love their Jewish brothers and sisters and their children more than land, then there will be peace. Zionism... a problem for every solution. Fast forward 10 years. The Zionists realized they had made a huge mistake over Peel, so were determined to push through a new partition plan which was always a smokescreen and stepping stone for further land grabs anyway. Despite 6 million Jews sacrificed by Zionist greed in the Holocaust, the Jewish population went from 8% of Palestine owning 2% of the land in 1914, to 33% of the population owning a mere 8% of the land in 1946....most of those illegal immigrants not born in Palestine. Here is a map of land ownership in 1946 http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story573.html (published as UN map # 94(b)in August 1950) No wonder the Palestinians rejected the plan..it awarded 60% of Palestine to a Jewish state (that was the only name they could come up with since Israel wasn’t around then) to a mainly alien people comprising only 33% of the population and owning 8% of the land. Wouldn’t you reject it if a similar plan were imposed upon you suggesting a partition of the USA, giving 60% away to an alien minority of Canadians and Mexicans. Here’s a map to help you visualize that http://lw.palestineremembered.com/Maps/New/Map_US_part_Green.gif Some background to this 1947 partition plan: It was illegal anyway. The UN General Assembly had no authority under its charter to partition any country. And the plan was never endorsed by the Security Council. The US managed to push through the UN partition plan of 1947 by bullying and bribing dozens of small nations http://www.theicenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/icenter-the_jerusalem_post_intensely_lobbying_the_un.pdf The Jewish Agency had bugged the rooms of UN Special Committee On Palestine and budgeted a million dollars for its own bribery campaign. (Righteous Victims, p. 182) and (“One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate” by Tom Segev p496) But the 1947 partition plan was only a stepping stone for further Zionist expansion. There followed the ethnic cleansing of 900,00 Palestinians over the next 2 years, encourage by Jewish terrorist gangs such as future Israeli PM Menachem Begin’s Irgun, and massacres such as Deir Yassin http://www.palestineremembered.com/Jerusalem/Dayr-Yasin/ In a speech addressing the Zionist Action Committee on April 6, 1948, Ben-Gurion said: "We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area, even if only in an artificial way, in a military way. . . . I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of [Palestinian] Arab population." (Benny Morris, p. 181 &Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 181) That’s exactly how colonies started in the West Bank after 1967...military outposts soon followed by Zionists colonists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement_timeline The land grab continues to this day. No doubt UG will request the truth to be deleted. But not a problem...he’s bound to rehash his 1947 partition canard again, and I can bust his myth again.. Shalom 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Seastallion Posted August 31, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted August 31, 2014 Present day Israel is way smaller than the post-1967 Israel. ...and present day Israel is much bigger than 1947 Israel! The Palestinians are compromising hugely already agreeing to 67 borders (incl land swaps). How are the Palestinians "compromising"? They REFUSED the 1947 borders and declared war on Israel. Losers can't be choosers. OK , putting aside for the moment previous details of the Zionist rejection of the Peel Commission’s very generous partition plan of 1937, which UG euphemistically calls “seeking clarification for a better deal”. Although Ben Gurion knew very well the consequences of the Zionist delaying tactics. "Had partition [referring to the Peel Commission partition plan] been carried out, the history of our people would have been different and six million Jews in Europe would not have been killed---most of them would be in Israel" (“One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate” by Tom Segev p. 414). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission ... all because of Zionist greed. When Zionists learn to love their Jewish brothers and sisters and their children more than land, then there will be peace. Zionism... a problem for every solution. Fast forward 10 years. The Zionists realized they had made a huge mistake over Peel, so were determined to push through a new partition plan which was always a smokescreen and stepping stone for further land grabs anyway. Despite 6 million Jews sacrificed by Zionist greed in the Holocaust, the Jewish population went from 8% of Palestine owning 2% of the land in 1914, to 33% of the population owning a mere 8% of the land in 1946....most of those illegal immigrants not born in Palestine. Here is a map of land ownership in 1946 http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story573.html (published as UN map # 94(b)in August 1950) No wonder the Palestinians rejected the plan..it awarded 60% of Palestine to a Jewish state (that was the only name they could come up with since Israel wasn’t around then) to a mainly alien people comprising only 33% of the population and owning 8% of the land. Wouldn’t you reject it if a similar plan were imposed upon you suggesting a partition of the USA, giving 60% away to an alien minority of Canadians and Mexicans. Here’s a map to help you visualize that http://lw.palestineremembered.com/Maps/New/Map_US_part_Green.gif Some background to this 1947 partition plan: It was illegal anyway. The UN General Assembly had no authority under its charter to partition any country. And the plan was never endorsed by the Security Council. The US managed to push through the UN partition plan of 1947 by bullying and bribing dozens of small nations http://www.theicenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/icenter-the_jerusalem_post_intensely_lobbying_the_un.pdf The Jewish Agency had bugged the rooms of UN Special Committee On Palestine and budgeted a million dollars for its own bribery campaign. (Righteous Victims, p. 182) and (“One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate” by Tom Segev p496) But the 1947 partition plan was only a stepping stone for further Zionist expansion. There followed the ethnic cleansing of 900,00 Palestinians over the next 2 years, encourage by Jewish terrorist gangs such as future Israeli PM Menachem Begin’s Irgun, and massacres such as Deir Yassin http://www.palestineremembered.com/Jerusalem/Dayr-Yasin/ In a speech addressing the Zionist Action Committee on April 6, 1948, Ben-Gurion said: "We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area, even if only in an artificial way, in a military way. . . . I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of [Palestinian] Arab population." (Benny Morris, p. 181 &Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 181) That’s exactly how colonies started in the West Bank after 1967...military outposts soon followed by Zionists colonists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement_timeline The land grab continues to this day. No doubt UG will request the truth to be deleted. But not a problem...he’s bound to rehash his 1947 partition canard again, and I can bust his myth again.. Shalom Fast forward to the future...."Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts