Israel vs Palestine

Remove all ads!

Viking, I took Northern-Ireland, because somebody brought it up. And you seem to agree with my main point, that "religion" is not the cause, but the means to make a difference between people. It used to be a kind of Apartheid system until the 60ies in my view. Now, in point of view, South-Africa was a special case, but a special case based on the way the Empire ruled it's colonies. And I made a fast overlook over the last 200 years, I left the potatoe famine (sp ?), because I wasn't sure about the spelling. Yes, things changed in Northern-Ireland. But the reasons for the conflict are found way back in the last 3 centuries.

But Norhtern-Ireland is a good example, how to end a conflict, which involves terrorism, because the peace-process is Northern-Ireland is very successfull. I think you're comment comes from the Northern-Ireland experience:

That's the same problem with the right-winger Israeli who shot Rabin. Rabin was the way to end the conflict, the only one who could have pulled it through.

So, I think one of the main points, why terrorism is viewd differently by a lot of Europeans, are the expiriences of European terrorism, like Northern-Ireland. We usually hear the view of the experts on terrorism from the St. Andrews university in scottland. , I visited Belfast recently, the Britsh solving of the conflict is in my view a great success and the restauration of the city a nice sideeffect.

Btw: UDA, UFF, UVF, that's just too complicated for a poor fellow like me.

 

Chandos. We had a very interesting documentary about Arab Americans recently on TV. One fact that I think most westerners are simply ignorant of is that over half of the Arabs living in the US are not muslims. It is the same here in Australia, but that hardly makes a difference.

When I was in Catholic high school and Egyptian Christian enrolled at our school and he was treated with the same loathing, contempt and racism as any Arab muslim would have receieved.

It's ingrained into Western psyche. Many Westerners are amazed to hear that there are Palestinian Christians, and they even question when the Palestinians became christians. Talk about out of touch!

I think that you are correct, it all boils down to politics. Westerners want to hate muslims and muslims want to hate westerners because they are and they can.

There were bushfires raging all over Australia last summer and my old father actually claimed that it was muslim terrorists linked to Bin Laden who were doing it for revenge over attacking Iraq!

I felt so sorry for my father. How narrow minded. And you know, that that is exactly what some ignorant muslims would say in reverse.

I think it is about time that we started to accept that people overseas are different and we have no right to force our views onto them.

Yago. I loved your sections about Australia. It even sounds almost comical. The ironic thing is, that nobody takes this scenario seriously, but to transfer the concept to Israel leads to howls of racism.

Jewish settlers are allowed to return to Israel under any circumstances, but a recent newspaper article by a prominent NY Jewish author (forgot the name) stated that Sharon is blocking the Palestinian request for the "right of return" to their homes. If 1 side has the right, then not the other?

It can't even be one sided. Each party needs to accept the views and rights of the other. Otherwise there is simply no end to the nonsense that has been going on for too long.

 

Well, this is drifting into a broader topic but the topic of whether Muslims are wrongly criticized by the right for preaching hate in Saudi Arabia etc. The assertion was this is bunk and I'd like to play devil's advocate here.

Now, I imagine the response is either to deny the above, in which case I'd suggest that the following:

The other option is to point out this is just one form of the religion and you're talking about all the other forms in asserting they aren't preaching hate etc. Probably then will follow an assertion that Christians and Jews and etc all have fringe elements that preach violence and it is stupid to paint all of Christianity with a broad brush because of these fringe groups.

I agree. I once made a list of Christian terrorist organizations for a post on this website and it included Christian groups spanning the globe (but particularly in S. America it seemed) and so I agree the pulpit of hate is not confined to one religion.

Here however is a non-PC devil's advocate assertion: in no other religion than Islam is the "fringe" element so prominent. Indeed, the Wahabbis are so widespread that it is not accurate to refer to them as a fringe movement any more than it would be accurate to refer to... Methodists as a fringe movement of Christianity. Further, because of the special role Saudi Arabia plays in the Middle East economically and because of the special role Saudi Arabia (or the land that once was something else but is now Saudi Arabia)plays to Muslims in general for religious reasons, the Wahabis enjoy a special prestige which allows them to spread their message to other non-Wahabbi Muslims which they take advantage of.

So, perhaps the Muslim religion is not inherently more violent than any other religion. Perhaps historically the other major religions have been equal *******s. However, today, the preaching of hate IS more widespread in the Muslim religion, in part because of the Wahabbi sect and others, than it is in other religious groups. The dislike of Israel and more generally western infidels for many IS in fact closely tied to the preaching of hate from the pulpit.

I can't say what precisely Chandos is referring to when he talks about what he is talking about and I can't and won't discount that stupid things have been said. However, when someone says that hate is being preached in many Muslim mosques and that influences the stance on Israel and the west that is not just a load of you know what.

After all, a great deal of the Muslim world supports Palestine unquestionably. Indeed, without seeing polling data I'll go ahead and assert it is a strong majority and this includes the Asian, African, and other nations where the religion is predominant. This support though clearly isn't entirely tied to simple sympathy for one being done wrong; from elsewhere:

I agree with those who say with regards to the more general dislike of the west found in the Arab Muslim nations that non-religious factors play a strong role. However, should the religious factor be dismissed off hand because it is non-P.C.? Isn't there evidence that strong groups do in fact preach hatred of Israel and the west (and everyone else for that matter) FOR religious reasons that are unrelated to non-religious reasons. Now, I will conceed readily enough that because of things like economic factors these groups more easily influence members of the populace than they could otherwise but that doesn't change the fact that the hate is rooted and grounded in religious beliefs even if they wouldn't be as influencial without other factors.

Ouch, now is the above non-P.C. or what? I'm atheist btw and an equal opportunity critic of religion when I deem appropriate so please no comments about me being a right wing fundamentalist Christian etc.

Almost as an aside Chandos, your criticism of Bush for dealing with Sharon when he demanded new Palestinian representation is, imo, way off. Just look at the practicalities. What if Bush had made such a demand? What would have happened? Wouldn't have worked eh? Also, it really isn't a good comparison to note that under the old Palestinian negotiator there hadn't been peace for, oh, I don't know 3,4,5 decades while Sharon hasn't been leading Israel that long - hell, there wasn't even an Israel back when the old Palestinian leadership was at war. Also, it is much more difficult to demand that Israel, which elected Sharon, perhaps stupidly, up and change their entire well settled democratic system of election. Compare that to Palestine which of course elected the old regime but at the same time the demand did not require its ouster but merely that Palestine go ahead and appoint a PM, like it was already set up that they could, who could do the negotiating. The old regime is still in power both in reality and formally and if it chooses to scuttle the process it could (but popular support of the people of Palestine is now behind the PM so he is less likely to.)

You're comparing apples and oranges imo.

Like I said, lots of ways to criticize the plan, that wasn't a strong one though. It was highly unrealistic.

 

He, Chandos the Red's post about portraying (sp ?) Islam in general, brought me to the idea, to go to an Israeli-rightwinger side, which holds international articles and is meant for an international public, how they portray Europe and explain the European policies towards the Middle-East conflict. What I liked the most, is the Article which suggests, that Europe is soon going to be an Islamic-colony, Europeans are aware of that and are preparing to be good servants to the new masters."Europe is no longer Europe. It is a province of Islam, as Spain and Portugal were at the time of the Moors. "

Sidenote: Maybe I should change my name to "Santyago matamoros". (I know "i")

Well, next to the usual "France is a vulture", there are some articles about Europe in general.

http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Articles/

France is the vulture of the world:

Europe, traditional european anti-semitism and the notorious love of Europeans for everything islamic:

Laches wrote:

That's a difficult question. I don't dismiss the religious factor out of political correctness, because I tend not to be political correct versus religions, as some christans on this board may have noticed to their dismay. Now, the roots of those preaching is, in my opinion, not to be found in islamic belief, but in political questions of the last century. I had a similiar argument with Ragusa, in European history, religion and politics used to be always entwinded, particularly in my country. So I am used to distinguish presbyterian, lutheran or catholic belives and the politics and wars, which were legitimzed with them.

My personal expirience with people of islamic believes (coming from a country with a huge islamic minority) and what I know of Islam, just shows no evidence for this allegetion:"FOR religious reasons that are unrelated to non-religious reasons"

"Isn't there evidence that strong groups do in fact preach hatred of Israel and the west."

They do so, but for populist gain and to further their political influence."

A. The scapegoat theory (blaming the west for own shortcomings) has something strong to it.

B. But advertizing their own political ideas by saying:" The infidels, immorals and worhippers of the holy cow, a.k.a. the almighty Euro, have brought nothing else than rape, criminality and poverty. Come to us. We know how to solve the problems of our country by going back to the fundaments of islam. What "Islam" is, will of course be interpreted by our political leaders, when they seize power and make new laws.

And by the way, I still think, that Iran is going to be the first democracy in the middle east.

[ May 22, 2003, 16:05: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Damn, pacifist has become an insult now.

This is classical far-right speech: anyone who dare to do anything but totally agree on every subject and actively support Israel no matter what is a Nazi (or a "dhimmi").

A little story about how Europe is under Islamic rule:
There's a Belgian law only a handful of law makers fully understand that is called law of universal competency. That law basically allow anyone to sue other people whatever their location. Since the law has been voted, hundreds if not thousands of plights have been registered against many people including Kagame, Putin, Kim Jong Il, Bush Sr, Castro... no one broke a brain vessel about it but when a plight was filed against Sharon the Israeli ambassador in Brussels was recalled home, the press displayed pictures of Manneken Pis peeing on Sharon, all Belgians were quickly labeled nazi, accusations spread about how all Belgians sent Jews to their death during WWII (for the record Belgium is the only country where some restistance movements' single purpose was to hide Jews from the Germans), a true cold war began, finally our government agreed to alter the law.
Morality: in the "Islamic ruled" country of Belgium, Israel makes the law.

 

The wole situation between Israel and the palestinians is not altogether a religious one. For both sides (+ Jordan) the peace process is a question of survival. One crucial element in the palestinian's demands is the withdrawal of the Israelis from Westbank and Gaza Strip. The problem is that 40-50% of Israels water supply comes from the occupied territories, mainly from the Westbank.
Together with the syrian demand of a withdrawal from the Golan Heights (were 3 of 4 source rivers of the jordan flow), this is a very difficult situation for Israel. After withdrawing from all occupied territory, they would be dependend from their former enemies.

 

Israel's rightwingers (meaning Hebrew zealots) are not only reluctant about having to depend to their enemies. They shudder to this thought because it comes againsts their beliefs and ethics
I have read recently an article about the Golan heights and the reporter said that any country posseses these heights can get into Israel in no time and from a very good strategically speaking position. I understand by this way the reluctance of Israel to give up these Heights.
But i can't understand why Israel does never try the peacefull way to achieve the security and wellfare of their nation and always choose to treat the surrounding Muslim nations as low-lives that do not even worth speaking to.
I do believe that they had something wrong in their heads screwed.
And i do believe that they are the bigger part of the problem not the others. This of course is my opinion only and it is based on the facts that have come to my knoledge and the way i understood them maybe i'm wrong maybe not time will tell

 

A most timely article:

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030521-094809-5098r.htm

 

But that's the point Darkwolf. Who would take 20 Million Australian refugees. Oklahoma ? Why should Lebanon take the Australians, when there is so much space left in Oklahoma.

4 million Arabs coming back + 1 million Arabs already there = 5 million Arabs in Israel = 50%/50% jews/arabs in Israel.

He, he, allow them to have a state on their own. NOOOOOO, the WAAAATTTTTEEEERRRRRR.

And anyway: Mark Twain is the source that proves, that Palestinians never were in Palestine ? Come on. The same could have been said about Nevada. Nothing, a few rocks and Las Vegas.

And that's the part I like the most. Huh ? hoh ? Heh? O t t o m a n e m p i r e !

From Darkwolf's article:

Mark Twain wrote:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin

Chapter 47

Let me guess, this "Washington Post" has some reputation.

[ May 23, 2003, 21:03: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Really? Why bother with the Washington Times when you can hear/watch/read the same "news" on Fox News, or the New York Post.

I am surprised that Sharon might go along with the map. But I think he is pretending.
Here's a clip from the Houston Chronicle:

"Sharon's willingness, at least for now, to accept the road map, may defuse criticism Bush has received at home from conservative Christians, who are opposed to Israel giving up land that they believe the Bible says belongs to the Jews."

www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/1923309

 

Don't confuse the Washington Post with the Washington Times.

 

BACK OFF Yago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I never said I supported the article, or claimed it was proof of anything, so quite putting words in my mouth.

A said it was a timely article. If anything, it seem to be a biased article from a Zionist point of view. That said, as person's perception is their reality.

All I was doing was saying that it was an interesting article. If someone here isn't intelligent enough to read the article and make their own conculsions, then they won't last long here anyway. I shouldn't have to slap a disclaimer on everthing I put a link up to.

By the way, Twain did write about the inhabitants of Nevada, in particular the Washoe indian tribe. Another part of my varied past, I used to live in Nevada, specifically the North Shore of Lake Tahoe, in a town called Incline Village.

 

Temper, temper, please. Besides, isn't the Washington Times owned by the Moonies, or some such bunch?

 

Oooooooooooooooooopppppppppssssssss

Well, then I went to far. Sorry, Darkwolf, I missinterpreted your post. I thought you post that article to state you're opinion.

Now, I look like a fool. (Ok, I often do that, but still, it's hard to get used to it).

What can I say in my defence ? It's clear, that I offended you, as I interpreted, you did post that article, because it reflected your opinion. Again sorry for that.

Ahm, well, öh, äh, üh, hm, maybe for me ?

That's true, but I argue for arguements sake. OK, I post on another board, where the same article came up and a lot of people said, that they found that point of view fully reasonable.

Ahm, there's another thread (Freud's view), which makes me think, you overestimate the capability of rational thinking of humanity ? Sure, you overestimated me (no, you did not, you just forgot about Yago and that he needs a disclaimer for everything).

Yes, your right, I went to far, but I can't let world-literature beeing raped, without a comment full of contempt. It's not because I doubt the intelligence of others (or yours Darkwolf), I just need to let go of some steam.

Again, I see that I offended you. It was my failure. Sorry.

Edit:

Now would anyone have the decency to post something here, beeing the last poster somehow makes me remind my foolishness. I don't want that to be an eternal state of affairs.

[ May 25, 2003, 16:28: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

It's good to see everyone is cooling down. As you said in an earlier post, Yago: this issue is a hot potato. That's for sure. The point of view of this article has been around for sometime; that Arabs use the Palestinian issue whenever it suits them, but they are unwilling to help themselves. The problem would not exist in the first place if they had not been kicked out of their country. I don't know what Mark Twain had to do with the problem, but I wonder which position he would take on the issue.

[ May 25, 2003, 18:18: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Hm, yes hot potato. I've read my sunday-newspaper today. And it reminded me of something which I tend to forget. I have found some random links on the net, to support my opinion with some "facts".

Bottom line: The Americans wield a dagger, the Europeans wield a great-sword. The peace process lies in pieces. Who's to blame ? The Europeans, they could force the Israelis to keep their treaties, they could force the Palestinians (sp ?) to agree with the Israelis. They could enforce a peace-plan. They could get something done, but they won't. The Europeans are to blame for the desperate situation, the middle-east conflict now is in.

They just wait, fancy their own disagreements and are unable to do something. While on the other hand, everything that happens in Israel, is happening because it is tolerated (and financially supported) by the biggest economical power of the region -> The European countries. If some outside nation is to blame for the whole desaster, the European nations are. It's not only tolerated, it is silently supported, because the economy of Israel (and everything there of, like the payments for the military) are dependent on the European nations.

[ May 25, 2003, 18:36: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Yago,

Sorry, I got a little hot(ok a lot ), and I probably should have pointed out that I intended the article as only a view into the mind of the Zionist, and that I did not agree. Truce?

I agree with most of what you said above. It cannot be stressed enough that neither side of this issue can be allowed a "victory", and that both sides are going to have to meet in the middle. The policies of the nations that continue to support Israel (including the US) are culpable to the entire issue, and until they are addressed, this issue will not be resolved. My only fear is that this confrontation has gone on for too long, and too many attrocities been commited on both sides for either to be able to forgive and make up.

[ May 26, 2003, 15:57: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

Truce, Darkwolf, Truce.