Muslimwoman said:
The difficulty for both Muslims and Jews is that it is very difficult to draw the line between what is a religious matter and what is a political one, because in both Israel and Palestine faith is used by political parties to win the backing of the people but that does not mean they speak for or are a demonstration of that faith.
ain't that the truth.
any discussion that does not support every aspect of the Jewish version of history is met with accusations of anti semitism and that is very hurtful.
not by me. however, the allegation of jewish complicity with the holocaust (naturally, for nefarious zionist reasons) has, in my experience, always, always, always been both a holy grail and a cause celebre for anti-semites, so you'll forgive me if i give it the short shrift it so absolutely deserves.
Of Iran Yes, of Islam No.
and of shi'a generally. the majority of iraqis are shi'a, too. i thought i was being quite clear about what i consider representative and who of what. and, frankly, like bob says, 10% of a billion muslims (or however many it is) is enough to be seriously, seriously worrying - to call it "small" smacks of rhetorical fidgy-widginess. like he says, it is "far from negligible", just like the 130K muslims in the *UK* who want me dead. and they live in my neighbourhood!
We need both sides to stop all this "you did a & b in 1920"
quite. perhaps abdullah and friend would like to acknowledge this as well?
Simon Wiesenthal said "We have done very little to condemn Jewish collaboration with the Nazi's. When, after the war, I demanded that those who had abused their office in the ghettos or concentration camps be removed from Jewish committees, I was told that 'this would diminish the guilt of the Nazis'".
and that's *precisely* what's happening in the arab world and right here on this thread. certainly what he wanted should have been done, i would agree with him - but i am 1000% certain that he would be as appalled as i to discover their putative actions being used to delegitimise the state of israel and transform jewish victimhood to jewish culpability. only in a universe as twisted as that of the anti-semites could such a thing occur.
Have we not discussed before that unless the Muslim nation holds its hand up and is honest about it's past and current views and actions that there is no hope for interfaith dialogue? I do hope I have misunderstood you and you are not saying it is ok to examine every history, in its true light, except the Jewish one - or that makes people anti semitic!
i think you'll find that the difference is that in one case you are talking about the actions of 20-30 people being extrapolated into an international conspiracy that has little basis in fact and in the other you are talking about a systemic, ongoing refusal to take responsibility for demonstrable views and actions that continues to perpetuate a cycle of violence and vainglory which causes each and every one of us personal grief and considerable inconvenience.
try saying that Britain was on the side of right and good during WWII and see what comes back.
if they weren't, then i don't know what the side of right and good actually was.
Or perhaps skip the political animals and make a committee of ecomonists and strategists from around the world, 50% chosen by Israel and 50% chosen by Palestine?
an interesting idea, but like you yourself have said, a committee that lacks the wherewithal to devise a religiously acceptable solution will also lack the ability to make it acceptable to the substantial minority to whom these are the only real solutions. hence previous ceasefires have had to be reinforced with the islamic concept of "hudna".
The court case dates back to 2004, when Arab citizens were barred from bidding on an Israeli government tender for housing in Carmiel, northern Israel.
Arab Israelis were excluded for the tender on the grounds that the land in Carmiel belonged to the JNF and was intended only for Jewish use.
I assume this is JNF owned land? Where does the JNF fit into the structure of Israel?
oh yes, the carmiel case. i remember this. it caused a massive hoo-hah. the jnf is a charity that owns about 10% of the land in israel, like the national trust in the UK. it's a jewish charity which predates the state of israel and its purpose is to "hold the land in trust for the jewish people". you can see where there would be a problem; the jnf is a private organisation (not a governmental one) that doesn't have helping arabs to get on the housing ladder on its list of priorities. on the other hand, israeli law should make it illegal to discriminate in the allocation of *government* housebuilding. i think that's what the case was about. you may be interested to know that there is an islamic
waqf that owns about 5% of the land in trust for muslims - it is not, obviously, interested in getting jews housed. the community-based structure does back to the ottoman "millet" structure. anyway, both are controversial in their own ways. i personally don't see a solution until jewish and arab neighbourhoods are mixed, but the trend, as you know, is for the communities to separate, unfortunately.
i'm pleased to hear about this palestinian human rights monitoring group if it does focus from the palestinian side on these sorts of problems; certainly the palestinian christians are on the receiving end from their muslim co-citizens often enough, not just jews. i've heard of bassem eid, too.
I suggest you look at the type of weaponry the Israeli's possess. They have rockets that can literally turn left at the end of the main street but they seem to keep accidentally killing children sitting in classrooms.
ok, there are two explanations for this:
1. the rockets are not as sophisticated, reliable and accurate as the israeli military make out
2. the israelis deliberately set out to kill children
same goes for the US and UK's "technological superiority" in iraq, actually. you must surely concede that 1. is likely to be true, given that the military know how to spin and exaggerate as well as anyone else and that 2. is at best counterproductive in terms of actually settling anything for good.
flowperson said:
Sorry...I can only take so much obtuse, hardheaded, narrow visioned, reactionary, biased, twisted reasoning.
flow, i can't believe you're actually aiming that comment at bob when friend and abdullah are also posting in this discussion.
Friend said:
DO you feel these testament verses represent your religion?do you reject them?
once again, we seem to be unable to discuss the failings of islam without reference to how much worse the jews are. how typical.
Muslimwoman said:
And if I held extreme Islamic views I could easily be held in guantanamo or one of the US secret interrogation prisons throughout the world, where no doubt I would be tortured - so your point is?
if you held extreme islamic views, you could, in the UK, talk about them at length in the street, in your mosque, at home, on TV, on the web and in print, because of free speech. goodness knows i hear enough of them. on the other hand, if you were extreme enough to travel to afghanistan or iraq or somewhere with a view to sticking it to the "crusaders" or happened to be captured in one of these places without a *very* good reason for them to believe you weren't one of these nutters, that might very well happen. now i happen to think guantanamo bay is counterproductive, but those guys aren't just there for talking - they're there for doing or at least appearing to be doing; if they didn't, of course they should be released but the point remains - you cannot be seized off the street in the UK and sent to belmarsh for merely shooting your mouth off.
Where did I defend it???? What I suggested is that one is a cleaner death than the other and if I was going to be executed I would rather have my head cut off cleanly in Saudi than be fried for 10 minutes in the US.
oh dear, that argument simply isn't going to help.
I consider any person that 'signs off' on a terrorist bombing to be as culpable as those that physically plant the bomb. As Mandela states in his own book that he signed off on the bombing I consider him to be the one that planted it, as without his agreement it would not have happened. That makes him a terrorist.
that's what the israelis locked up barghouti for. however, they'll still need to let him out in the long run, the same way they needed to deal with gerry adams and martin mcguinness.
And if they are given their independence and the occupied territories returned to them then they will stop the pointless murder - sort of a circular argument don't you think.
hmm. i think given the conduct of hamas in gaza since they got their territory returned to them (and hizbollah in south lebanon) you might forgive the israelis for not finding this argument terribly convincing nowadays.
Children in the UK throw stones at police cars, do you suggest we shoot them?
i don't think that's the point. the point is that their parents should not allow them to act in such a way, nor for others to encourage them to do so. if i encouraged my children to do so, i would expect to face some kind of legal sanction, i would have thought.
We are poles apart mentally and are therefore likely to read into each others comments what we expect to find there. We are also both rather fond of generalising - which doesn't help.
ok, this i think you can both agree on. so agree on it and let's have a more productive discussion. MW, for example, does not teach her children to throw rocks, because a) she is sensible and b) doesn't have any. i would certainly encourage both of you to read each others' posts very carefully and encourage you not to post in anger.
but, as to the david irving link... "no axe to grind"?
WHAT? ARE YOU FECKING KIDDING ME? DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHO THIS GUY IS? i mean, seriously!!
b'shalom
bananabrain
