The Israeli-Palestinian issue


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

Ghandi and a Burka = A Ghurka comes to Gaza to gently bring peace to the place where the Prince of Peace walked...

Did anyone see Tinkerbell around?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 400
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1)The Jews were already there, on their own property; no one brought them in except themselves.

They didn't own it at all. What the Jews owned at the time was the following:

Picture10.png

That is 8% of the land.. The Arabs owned the rest of the 92%

Then the 1947 UN Partition Plan came about where 33 countries voted in favor of giving the following land to the Zionists, without the permission of the land's owners:

Picture11.png

That is 56% of the land.. This land is also the most fertile.

The 1947 UN partition gave the Arabs 46% of the lands in Palestine, The Arabs at that time were 69% of the population and owned 92% of the land. The UN also gave the Zionists, 56% of the land when they were 31% of the population and owned less than 8% of the land and it gave the Zionists the best and most fertile land. How is that just at all?

It was Arab resort to violence that produced the "Nabka" [do I have that word correct?]. Had the Arabs not resorted to violence in 1947-9 (and in preceding and following years) there would be no Occupied Territories, no Intifada, no Hamas and there would be a Palestinian state. There might even have been in the course of time one unified state with Jews and Arabs living together more or less harmoniously. It was Arab violence that made that impossible, nothing the Jews did (except of course, insisting on their right to stay alive).

The Zionists were attacked because they were trying create a state within Palestine of their own rather than living in the current state and the Palestinians didn't like it. If a group of Indian or Chinese migrants to the USA decided that they wanted to create a state of their own in the country how do you think the US population would feel?

Let us also not forget that they also started launching terrorist attacks on the British after the 1939 British Whitepaper and continued until the British handed the issue to the UN.

3)Hamas has never kept a truce or fulfilled an agreement except in the very shortest term; for instance by violating the truces by bringing in weaponry and ammunition

That's not true at all.

4) Hamas' definition of an Islamic State would be one in which Jews would not have civil rights and might not even be allowed to live in Eretz Yisrael.

That again is not true at all.

4a) Under Jewish law, a non-Jew in a Jewish state would have full civil rights, and none of the deprivations of rights or status which is found in the "dhimmi" system are possible. I realize you think a real Islamic state would not have the "dhimmi" system as it is now practiced, but the point here is that it would be impossible to put an equivalent system into use in a Jewish state which bases itself on Jewish law, unlike those Muslim countries which are able to impose "dhimmi" systems under their interpretation of shariah.

Really? Which Jewish law is that? Could you please point it out to me?

5) When Hamas says "Zionists" it means Jews. Meaning me, Neturei Karta and every other Jew now alive. Hamas would gladly kill me. Why would you be surprised to find that I don't think very highly of Hamas in those circumstances.

That simply isn't true. Again, you didn't address my point. If that were indeed the case, why would Hamas' charter call for Jews, Christians and Muslims to live in an 'Islamic State' together?

Why is violence and force Hamas's only method for dealing with Israel? Why not non-violent methods?

You mean like protests? Yes, that's been done, even non-violent protesters get gassed, beaten, jailed and sometimes shot by Israeli soldiers.

Maybe you mean by calling out to the international community and asking for help while not attacking the Israelis? Well they did that during the 2007 truce with Israel, while Israel maintained a siege on Gaza not allowing food, medicine or money to come in Hamas was asking for help and intercession from the world and didn't attack Israel during that time. Children were getting malnutrition and the economy of Gaza collapsed. Yet no one came to their aid and helped them no matter how much they asked. During this truce Hamas did not attack the Israelis.. Yet Israel did attack Hamas towards the end of the year.

What non-violence did the Zionists use against the British? They used terrorism and the Stern gang, a Zionist Terrorist group even went to Hitler and offered to help the Nazis fight the British.

And what did Ghandi say when asked what the most acceptable solution to the problems in Palestine?

"The abandonment wholly by the Jews of terrorism and other forms of violence."

From The Bombay Chronicle

(June 2, 1947)

Edited by Adonis Vlahos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1)The Jews were already there, on their own property; no one brought them in except themselves.

They didn't own it at all. What the Jews owned at the time was the following:

Picture10.png

That is 8% of the land.. The Arabs owned the rest of the 92%

Then the 1947 UN Partition Plan came about where 33 countries voted in favor of giving the following land to the Zionists, without the permission of the land's owners:

Picture11.png

That is 56% of the land.. This land is also the most fertile.

The 1947 UN partition gave the Arabs 46% of the lands in Palestine, The Arabs at that time were 69% of the population and owned 92% of the land. The UN also gave the Zionists, 56% of the land when they were 31% of the population and owned less than 8% of the land and it gave the Zionists the best and most fertile land. How is that just at all?

It was Arab resort to violence that produced the "Nabka" [do I have that word correct?]. Had the Arabs not resorted to violence in 1947-9 (and in preceding and following years) there would be no Occupied Territories, no Intifada, no Hamas and there would be a Palestinian state. There might even have been in the course of time one unified state with Jews and Arabs living together more or less harmoniously. It was Arab violence that made that impossible, nothing the Jews did (except of course, insisting on their right to stay alive).

The Zionists were attacked because they were trying create a state within Palestine of their own rather than living in the current state and the Palestinians didn't like it. If a group of Indian or Chinese migrants to the USA decided that they wanted to create a state of their own in the country how do you think the US population would feel?

Let us also not forget that they also started launching terrorist attacks on the British after the 1939 British Whitepaper and continued until the British handed the issue to the UN.

3)Hamas has never kept a truce or fulfilled an agreement except in the very shortest term; for instance by violating the truces by bringing in weaponry and ammunition

That's not true at all.

4) Hamas' definition of an Islamic State would be one in which Jews would not have civil rights and might not even be allowed to live in Eretz Yisrael.

That again is not true at all.

4a) Under Jewish law, a non-Jew in a Jewish state would have full civil rights, and none of the deprivations of rights or status which is found in the "dhimmi" system are possible. I realize you think a real Islamic state would not have the "dhimmi" system as it is now practiced, but the point here is that it would be impossible to put an equivalent system into use in a Jewish state which bases itself on Jewish law, unlike those Muslim countries which are able to impose "dhimmi" systems under their interpretation of shariah.

Really? Which Jewish law is that? Could you please point it out to me?

5) When Hamas says "Zionists" it means Jews. Meaning me, Neturei Karta and every other Jew now alive. Hamas would gladly kill me. Why would you be surprised to find that I don't think very highly of Hamas in those circumstances.

That simply isn't true. Again, you didn't address my point. If that were indeed the case, why would Hamas' charter call for Jews, Christians and Muslims to live in an 'Islamic State' together?

Why is violence and force Hamas's only method for dealing with Israel? Why not non-violent methods?

You mean like protests? Yes, that's been done, even non-violent protesters get gassed, beaten, jailed and sometimes shot by Israeli soldiers.

Maybe you mean by calling out to the international community and asking for help while not attacking the Israelis? Well they did that during the 2007 truce with Israel, while Israel maintained a siege on Gaza not allowing food, medicine or money to come in Hamas was asking for help and intercession from the world and didn't attack Israel during that time. Children were getting malnutrition and the economy of Gaza collapsed. Yet no one came to their aid and helped them no matter how much they asked. During this truce Hamas did not attack the Israelis.. Yet Israel did attack Hamas towards the end of the year.

What non-violence did the Zionists use against the British? They used terrorism and the Stern gang, a Zionist Terrorist group even went to Hitler and offered to help the Nazis fight the British.

And what did Ghandi say when asked what the most acceptable solution to the problems in Palestine?

"The abandonment wholly by the Jews of terrorism and other forms of violence."

From The Bombay Chronicle

(June 2, 1947)

Mighty interesting that an enormous part of the land alloted to the Jews by the UN is the Negev. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the Negev; it's a desert where the only human presence is Bedouins, mines, and the agricultural settlements established by the Jews. It's not very fertile, and what is fertile is fertile because of Jewish efforts.

Most of the rest of your response is so unlike reality that there is no sense in answering it. You're caught up in your own universe of "everything the Jews did is wrong". I'll only repeat that the violence in the period 1900-1947 was directed by Arabs against Jews. The terrorism of the Irgun/Stern gang was miniscule compared to Arab violence, and directed--this is an important point you don't seem to understand--only against the British military. Not Arab civilians or even British civilians.

As far as Gandhi goes, in 1947 his plans needed as much co-operation from the British and the Muslims as he could get, so there's an element of self-serving bias in that statement. And of course this is the man who thought that the proper response of the Jews to Nazi genocide was to help the Nazis along.

And as for Hamas--I'm not saying that some Arabs have never tried non-violence. Some of them have been killed for "co-operating" with the Israelis by other Palestinians for their efforts. But Hamas relies solely on violence for its methods. Villagers protesting the Green Wall running through their farmland is not Hamas. Hamas uses violence and does not attempt non-violence and when aid is brought in by the international community, Hamas seizes it for its own ends.

As for Jewish law regarding non-Jews--that's one of the Torah's commandments, to treat strangers well because we Jews were once "strangers in a strange land."

Jeffrey S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Jewish law regarding non-Jews--that's one of the Torah's commandments, to treat strangers well because we Jews were once "strangers in a strange land."

A further Commandment was not to abhor Egyptians after the third generation. In short, no Eternal Grudge against the Egyptians because of the enslavement of the Israelites by the Egyptians. If one fine combs the Torah, one can glean some gems of wisdom.

Compare this to the emnity of the Shi'ah toward the Sunnis over the murder of Ali. The reading of the Muqtal Imam Husseyn on the Ashura is blood curdling. Take a look at this:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=4l4ISfnY5WQ

No doubt our Resident Muslim Apologist will tell us the Shi'ah are not really honest to goodness True Muslims. No True Scotsman would be that mad.

See how long you can stand it.

There goes your Muslim; Different Mountain, different God.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order to wriggle out of the accusation that Hamas has hatred for Israel, and that they are such peace-loving organisation,

Adonis writes :-

"..and, yes, we saw the same thing in South Africa where all of the Europeans who oppressed the Africans during Apartheid thought that if the Africans ever got into power, that they'd exact vengeance on the Europeans and massacre them all."

Fact - The white, Apartheid regime, came under very little military pressure from the Blacks. The so-called Black "Struggle" was a mere pin-prick for the regime.

Fact - That regime could have gone on indefinitely.

Fact - The first liberal Afrikaans President,FW de Klerk, declared a referendum, to gauge how whites wanted to 'go forward.'

Fact - 67% of the whites voted for a 'New Deal', because they knew it was just, and practical.

The ANC was unbanned, Mandela was released.

Apartheid fell because of the majority of whites.

Where was the fear, where was the hatred?

Adonis, I say this to collapse your argument that my statements are hate-based ("Tony, not all people are like you." and, "the hate that you have inside yourself." ), and not to earn a medal - it just so happens that I was a strong supporter of equal rights in my country.

Your digs at the "European", the "colonist", or the Zionist, have all indicated either a lack of knowledge, or worse, a refusal to face the facts.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personal attacks say more about the attacker than they do about the one attacked.

Good rational arguments are much more effective in educating and influencing readers.

EDIT: Before people remind me that I attack a few people, let me remind them that my issue with such people is personal. They have personally and viciously attacked people I love and they personally attack me. If and when they stop, I will. Ultimately, they are not very important people. But so long as they spread their poison (and I saw the damage this poison does before I started hitting back), I, and those who also hit back of their own free will, will be the antidote.

Personal attacks on people you don't know over intellectual issues, however, is a far different matter.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mighty interesting that an enormous part of the land alloted to the Jews by the UN is the Negev. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the Negev; it's a desert where the only human presence is Bedouins, mines, and the agricultural settlements established by the Jews. It's not very fertile, and what is fertile is fertile because of Jewish efforts.

You mean the Negev where the Arab Bedouins have spent hundreds of years roaming around?

The point is that they were given land they didn't own and created a state in a land where there were already people. Land was taken from the Arabs and given to them, no Libertarian could support the land being taken from one person who owned it and given to another. It goes against almost every idea of Libertarianism. Would the US allow the creation of a state in their own for the Native Americans who haven't stopped living in those lands and keep a very strong connection to them? No they wouldn't at all..

Most of the rest of your response is so unlike reality that there is no sense in answering it. You're caught up in your own universe of "everything the Jews did is wrong". I'll only repeat that the violence in the period 1900-1947 was directed by Arabs against Jews. The terrorism of the Irgun/Stern gang was miniscule compared to Arab violence, and directed--this is an important point you don't seem to understand--only against the British military. Not Arab civilians or even British civilians.

1.Actually, what I am saying is not unlike reality, address each point that I made in the previous post instead of just claiming that I'm lying. This isn't about 'everything the Jews did is wrong' at all.

2.The Zionists killed and intimidated Arabs too just like they do today.

3. Also, terrorism is terrorism, the Zionists attacked the British yes, they killed many British soldiers and celebrate doing so today. They used terrorism to create their own state and you blame the Palestinians for doing the same thing? Oh please.. How hypocritical.

4. The Stern Gang, a group responsible for many terrorist operations, they went and approached Hitler offering him help in return for him fighting against the British. Yitzhak Shamir, a former member of the Stern Gang was elected to be the Prime Minister of Israel.

As far as Gandhi goes, in 1947 his plans needed as much co-operation from the British and the Muslims as he could get, so there's an element of self-serving bias in that statement. And of course this is the man who thought that the proper response of the Jews to Nazi genocide was to help the Nazis along.

So you're saying that Ghandi sold out so he could get the support of the British? Are you serious?

And as for Hamas--I'm not saying that some Arabs have never tried non-violence. Some of them have been killed for "co-operating" with the Israelis by other Palestinians for their efforts. But Hamas relies solely on violence for its methods. Villagers protesting the Green Wall running through their farmland is not Hamas. Hamas uses violence and does not attempt non-violence and when aid is brought in by the international community, Hamas seizes it for its own ends.

Hamas has tried non Violence, it has adhered to ceasefires while Israel still attacked it like the example of the 2007 ceasefire which Israel broke.

But again, even those non violent villagers protesting the apartheid wall get gassed, beaten, imprisoned and often shot by the Israeli military.

You also didn't answer my other question, how come the Zionists didn't use non-violence against the British? How come they had to be terrorists and blow up buildings, how come they had to assassinate UN members?

As for Jewish law regarding non-Jews--that's one of the Torah's commandments, to treat strangers well because we Jews were once "strangers in a strange land."

Jeffrey S.

No, I'm asking for the direct reference from the Torah that specifies this. Book, Chapter and Verse please.

A further Commandment was not to abhor Egyptians after the third generation. In short, no Eternal Grudge against the Egyptians because of the enslavement of the Israelites by the Egyptians. If one fine combs the Torah, one can glean some gems of wisdom.

I have met MANY Jews that have a seething hate for Germany even though the Nazi regime ended in WW2. I know MANY Jews that hate Arabs.. So let's not try this game shall we.. There are always crazy people in every group.

Compare this to the emnity of the Shi'ah toward the Sunnis over the murder of Ali. The reading of the Muqtal Imam Husseyn on the Ashura is blood curdling. Take a look at this:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=4l4ISfnY5WQ

No doubt our Resident Muslim Apologist will tell us the Shi'ah are not really honest to goodness True Muslims. No True Scotsman would be that mad.

See how long you can stand it.

What Shia emnity towards the Sunnis? The Shia don't blame the Sunnis for that at all.. They see the Sunnis as their brothers in Islam. Yes they despise those who harmed Ali but those who did so weren't Sunnis, they were Khajarites.

Now, regarding this lecture on Imam Hussein pbuh's martyrdom. I'm not sure if you're aware but the Sunnis also despise the tyrant Yazid who had Imam Hussein pbuh killed. You can ask any Sunni today and they will tell you that they would gladly go back to that time and die alongside Imam Hussein pbuh fighting against such oppression and tyranny, fighting for justice and to protect Islam as Imam Hussein pbuh did..

Did you watch this lecture the whole way through? Are you aware of what they are even talking about? Do you know the full story of Karbala?

The events at Karbala are the perfect example of innocence and purity against tyranny and oppression. What those people did to Imam Hussein, the Family of the Prophet peace be upon them all and their companions was, in my opinion the worst crime in the world's history. Making them stay in the desert for days with no water, not even for the babies and children and brutally murdering almost all of the males from the age of 6 months old to more than 50 years old and mutilating their dead bodies. Then assaulting the women and humiliating them.

Of course this is an emotional video, these people are still grieving for Imam Hussein pbuh, how could we not grieve for him, he saved Islam from being changed by tyrants..

I would never call the Shia or any other group of the Muslims 'not really Muslim'.. They are just like the Sunnis..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note to the rest of the community.

Mr. Vlahos seems to be so stuck on his own narrative of the Arab-Israeli conflict--for instance, by failing to notice that the terrorism of the Zionists in the 1940s was limited to British/UN targets and specifically aimed at them, whereas the terrorism of the Palestinians today is specifically aimed at civilians, a rather important difference, and failing to notice that the Israeli state, almost as soon as it was able to, suppressed the Irgun/Stern Gang (look up the Altalena incident if you are not familiar with it), whereas the present day Palestinian Authority is either unwilling or incapable (or, in my opinion, both) of doing anything to stop the terrorist elements in its own bailiwick, and failing to notice that the Gandhi-Martin Luther King vision of non-violent opposition is a lot more than proclaiming truces you don't intend to abide by, a la Hamas--that there is no benefit to speaking with him on this topic. I am now invoking on him the doom of the Arbitrary Assertion.

BTW, Mr. Vlahos, as a piece of impartial advice--the "Che" look may be nice fashion, but it will distinctly fail to impress anyone in Objectivist fora. Your earlier photo served you much better.

And BTW, thus it is written:

And if a stranger sojourn with you in your land, you shall not wrong him. But the stranger that dwells with you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Mitzrayim [Egypt]: I am the Lord your G-d.

Vayikra [Leviticus in Christian terminology] chapter 19, verses 33 and 34.

Jeffrey Smith

Edited by jeffrey smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not know if this dispute is resolvable through a libertarian, Judaic, Muslimic or objectivist window.

I am a strong supporter of Israel as our "air craft carrier" in the middle east. As an American foundational element in our global security plans.

Ethically, I am closer to the Israili, then the Muslim in the Middle East.

I am still undecided as to who is more at fault, nor do I care. I know of no Jewish sect or Christian sect that preaches the death of my country.

Therefore, right now I err on the side of Israel, but this is at least a civilized discussion.

Good job folks.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a chat with an Arab-Israeli I know well. 30 years old, he and his twin brother opened a very successful Middle Eastern restaurant here in Joburg - a mainly Jewish clientele - and are both highly rational men.

I wanted to know how he felt about his country of birth and nationality, and how the Muslims in Israel (numbering close to 1.1 million, he told me) were treated.

The only difference he could point to: an Israeli-Arab has the choice to not serve in the Israeli Defense Force - in a nation of conscriptive service.

There are 4 Arab Parties representative to the Knesset; his rights are that of an Israeli citizen, and he was not aware of any social ostracism, living and schooling among the Jewish majority. Marwan has a sister finishing her medical degree at University there, who is already recognized for her brilliance.

On the subject of Palestine, Marwan is both saddened, and uncompromising; saddened by the intransigence of the Palestinian people, and their suffering; but also firm on the subject of giving back any more territory.

"Why doesn't everyone realise, that if Israel relinquishes the Golan Heights, it will lead to the end of Israel?"

"So even if (a big if) Hamas kept its word on the peace treaty after getting back this land, Israel's old enemy, Syria, will have free access to her northern border any time it wants.

(Let's be clear on this - it wants.)"

Imo, the most dangerous people are those who dream of brotherhood and peace, and bringing back the good, old days. (If they ever existed!) It's a large dose of reality and thought that's required here, not naive, uninformed, emotive, rhetoric.

Any further peace-for-land deals that Israel makes in the region will most likely end in the terrible loss of Jewish and Arab life.

And the dreamers and do-gooders will then cry that didn't mean it.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note to the rest of the community.

Is this the part where you start making a narrative for the rest of the community trying to paraphrase what I say to suit yourself and miss out the important facts? After looking below I suppose you are.. How original.. You should be in the media..

Mr. Vlahos seems to be so stuck on his own narrative of the Arab-Israeli conflict--for instance, by failing to notice that the terrorism of the Zionists in the 1940s was limited to British/UN targets and specifically aimed at them, whereas the terrorism of the Palestinians today is specifically aimed at civilians, a rather important difference, and failing to notice that the Israeli state, almost as soon as it was able to, suppressed the Irgun/Stern Gang (look up the Altalena incident if you are not familiar with it), whereas the present day Palestinian Authority is either unwilling or incapable (or, in my opinion, both) of doing anything to stop the terrorist elements in its own bailiwick, and failing to notice that the Gandhi-Martin Luther King vision of non-violent opposition is a lot more than proclaiming truces you don't intend to abide by, a la Hamas--that there is no benefit to speaking with him on this topic. I am now invoking on him the doom of the Arbitrary Assertion.

1. Hamas has changed a lot within the last few years in terms of their tactics.. Hamas today doesn't intentionally target any civilian other than adult settlers. In the past they behaved differently but have abandoned the tactic of suicide bombing, which in my opinion is a very smart move as I see it as forbidden in Islam. In addition to that the Palestinians including Hamas have historically directed most of their attacks against two groups. The Israeli police/army and adult Israeli settlers. They 100% are justified in targeting both of these groups because all of those groups carry firearms, So they are just as correct according to international law as the Israeli military is of targeting armed Hamas militants.

2. The Israeli's voted in Yitzhak Shamir, previous leader of this terrorist group that approached Hitler and offered to help him remove all the Jews from Europe if he helped remove the British from Palestine and committed many terrorist acts, the Israeli government have holidays commemorating and celebrating terrorist groups like the Stern Gang.

3. Terrorism is terrorism, Israel was a state that was created through terrorism, intimidation, murder, assassinations etc of not just British soldiers, but against politicians and UN commissioners. Israel was a nation borne out of terrorism yet when the Palestinians do the same things you criticize.

4. Before 2007 there were more than 700 aid trucks per day that were allowed to enter the Gaza Strip, carrying vital aid and other goods to keep the economy going, the people fed, the sick treated and the public servants paid. Palestinian fishermen were able to travel up to 6nm from the shore by the Israeli's to be able to catch fish which was still very close to shore as most of the fish are located 12-15nm from shore which the Palestinians had no access to. During this period up until 1999 the Palestinians were catching about 4,000 tonnes of fish per year making up $10,000,000 a year for Gaza which is about 4% of the Gazan economy, employing some 45,000 people in the fishing industry.

When Hamas was elected into power by the overwhelming majority of Palestinians the Israelis along with the US and its puppet states in the region have destroyed the Gazan economy with their siege and tried to stir up a civil war to take Hamas out of power even though Hamas was democratically elected by the Palestinians themselves.

In 2007 the Israeli's put the Gaza Strip under blockade, trying to starve the Palestinians into submission preventing the majority of those 700 trucks from coming in to deliver goods in only allowing less than 70 trucks to cross in per day into the Gaza strip as a means to create discontent at the government which ultimately failed. The Palestinian fishermen were also forced to stay within 3nm of shore where the fish in the area had been depleted meaning they couldn't get enough fish and in 2008 this went down to 2,710 tonnes of fish and they were subjected to immense humiliation by the Israelis, beatings, arrests, being shot at etc.

The Gazans have been under siege by the Israelis and Egyptians being prevented from bringing in enough food to feed the people, medicine to treat the sick and other necessities such as money to pay public servants. They called for the international community to intervene and it refused to do so, during this time they did not launch rockets against Israel and still abided by the ceasefire that they agreed to. Israel however broke the ceasefire and killed some Hamas militants in Gaza in 2007, this attack was not provoked at all and the UN admits to the fact and did so at the very beginning that Israel was the one breaking the ceasefire agreement. The Israeli's broke the ceasefire agreement 7 times on June 20 and June 26. Yes, some rockets were launched from Gaza on 3 occasions on June 23rd and June 26th but not by Hamas, it was by other splinter groups that Hamas were actively working against.

At the end of the agreed ceasefire, to add insult to injury, the Israelis said they wanted to renegotiate the trucks coming into the Gaza Strip with aid and instead of reinstating the 700 trucks per day, only increasing it to 90 trucks per day from the 70 beforehand creating scarcity and havoc in Gaza.. This was far less than the 700 trucks per day and definitely would neither help restart the Gaza economy but it'd also keep them in the dire circumstances that they had been in since 2007 and this is while at that time they still didn't have enough to get by.

So what was Hamas to do then? The children of Gaza are suffering from malnutrition while Israeli's live in relative luxury in comparison. The Israeli's had also broken the ceasefire so why on earth should Hamas agree to another ceasefire under such terrible terms? Would you?

So they asked for the international community to intervene and yet again the international community refused to do so.. Preferring to sit in silence and watch..

So put yourself in the shoes of the government.. What would any person here do?

I'll paraphrase a Hamas leader's comments at the time, 'We decided that if our children would have to stay up at night from crying from hunger pains and malnutrition, then we would make the Israeli's stay up all night too fearing our rockets'.

Hamas uses unguided rockets, which are in fact next to impossible to have any accuracy with in terms of where the rockets land so they point it in a general direction. It is a form of harassment against the Israeli's, psychological warfare if you will as they know the Israelis will just spend most of their time in their bomb shelters and to try and get better terms to negotiate with. Would it be better if Hamas didn't use unguided rockets? Yes, it would.. I would much prefer them have the military technology and capability to be able to strike with accuracy against Israeli military targets within Israel and actually be able to fight a proper guerrilla war against Israeli forces including guided missiles to use against Israeli tanks and military installations and US supplied F-16s and Apache Gunships.

However, considering that this is not the case and Hamas only has limited means of being able to fight against the Israeli blockade and military strikes that broke the truce I therefore completely and 100% support Hamas' use of rockets against the Israeli towns in question and would have done the same myself. Let the Israeli's live as much of an uncomfortable life as the Gazans do and force them to return with a better negotiating stance than just trying ethnically cleanse and commit genocide against the Gazans. I mean what was the other choice? Allow themselves to be further humiliated and subjected and just roll over and die, letting their people suffer and children die whilst doing nothing? To do anything else other than what they did do would simply be dying quietly and not making too much of a fuss about it so the world wouldn't have to see the results of their inaction.. Hamas acted as a responsible government by taking the actions that they did.

Responsibility here lies only with the Israeli, Egyptian and US Governments. The Palestinians had an absolute right there to fight back because the world watched on in silence doing nothing while the Palestinians were starving to death, patients were dying from a lack of treatment and the Palestinian economy was in tatters. THAT is a war on the Gazan people, a blockade like that is an act of war and for what? The people of Palestine deciding to vote in Hamas as their government in a landslide victory? I remember so clearly Bush, Rice and others not just within the US government but around the world saying about how the elections in Palestine would be a 'great step towards democracy' and 'the Palestinian people would be able to choose for themselves' and they were so sure that the PLO would win the elections, but no sooner had Hamas been voted in the US and most of the rest of the world put their government under severe sanctions and started plotting to remove them from government, arming, training and helping dissidents attack them and try remove them from power. This is the absolute proof of how hypocritical the West has been, when it suits the US and other Anglo-European nations they are all for democracy, but when it comes to serving their interests when it comes to natural resources or Israel, democracy means absolutely nothing to them.. Outrageous.

The Goldstone Report press release stated:

"The report concludes that the Israeli military operation was directed at the people of Gaza as a whole, in furtherance of an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population, and in a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed at the civilian population. The destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy which has made the daily process of living, and dignified living, more difficult for the civilian population.

The Report states that Israeli acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy, could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed."

Peace isn't just a lack of rockets or bombs exploding, that is just an absence of physical combat. There can be no peace until there is justice for all parties and the Palestinians haven't received justice for 60 years. If the Israeli's want peace, let them agree to the Arab Peace Initiative.. It's the only fair way to resolve this properly..

BTW, Mr. Vlahos, as a piece of impartial advice--the "Che" look may be nice fashion, but it will distinctly fail to impress anyone in Objectivist fora. Your earlier photo served you much better.

I think Che Guevara would be rolling in his grave having my look compared to his. My facial hair is not unkempt and messy, it is neat and trimmed, I dress smartly and do not look like a guerrilla and I am very sure he'd take issue with my French (imperialist) Lacoste hat being compared to his famous plain beret decorated with a star. In no way am I trying to look like Che Guevara.. This is how I dress and if you don't like it, I couldn't care less. If people on this forum look more into what I look like than what I say then that is their loss.. I'm not here to please anyone.

And BTW, thus it is written:

And if a stranger sojourn with you in your land, you shall not wrong him. But the stranger that dwells with you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Mitzrayim [Egypt]: I am the Lord your G-d.

Vayikra [Leviticus in Christian terminology] chapter 19, verses 33 and 34.

Thank you I will read into this.

Edited by Adonis Vlahos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a chat with an Arab-Israeli I know well. 30 years old, he and his twin brother opened a very successful Middle Eastern restaurant here in Joburg - a mainly Jewish clientele - and are both highly rational men.

I wanted to know how he felt about his country of birth and nationality, and how the Muslims in Israel (numbering close to 1.1 million, he told me) were treated.

The only difference he could point to: an Israeli-Arab has the choice to not serve in the Israeli Defense Force - in a nation of conscriptive service.

There are 4 Arab Parties representative to the Knesset; his rights are that of an Israeli citizen, and he was not aware of any social ostracism, living and schooling among the Jewish majority. Marwan has a sister finishing her medical degree at University there, who is already recognized for her brilliance.

On the subject of Palestine, Marwan is both saddened, and uncompromising; saddened by the intransigence of the Palestinian people, and their suffering; but also firm on the subject of giving back any more territory.

"Why doesn't everyone realise, that if Israel relinquishes the Golan Heights, it will lead to the end of Israel?"

"So even if (a big if) Hamas kept its word on the peace treaty after getting back this land, Israel's old enemy, Syria, will have free access to her northern border any time it wants.

(Let's be clear on this - it wants.)"

Imo, the most dangerous people are those who dream of brotherhood and peace, and bringing back the good, old days. (If they ever existed!) It's a large dose of reality and thought that's required here, not naive, uninformed, emotive, rhetoric.

Any further peace-for-land deals that Israel makes in the region will most likely end in the terrible loss of Jewish and Arab life.

And the dreamers and do-gooders will then cry that didn't mean it.

Tony

Why Israel is after me

By Azmi Bishara

AZMI BISHARA was a member of the Knesset until his resignation in April.

May 3, 2007

Amman, Jordan — I AM A PALESTINIAN from Nazareth, a citizen of Israel and was, until last month, a member of the Israeli parliament.

But now, in an ironic twist reminiscent of France's Dreyfus affair — in which a French Jew was accused of disloyalty to the state — the government of Israel is accusing me of aiding the enemy during Israel's failed war against Lebanon in July.

Israeli police apparently suspect me of passing information to a foreign agent and of receiving money in return. Under Israeli law, anyone — a journalist or a personal friend — can be defined as a "foreign agent" by the Israeli security apparatus. Such charges can lead to life imprisonment or even the death penalty.

The allegations are ridiculous. Needless to say, Hezbollah — Israel's enemy in Lebanon — has independently gathered more security information about Israel than any Arab Knesset member could possibly provide. What's more, unlike those in Israel's parliament who have been involved in acts of violence, I have never used violence or participated in wars. My instruments of persuasion, in contrast, are simply words in books, articles and speeches.

These trumped-up charges, which I firmly reject and deny, are only the latest in a series of attempts to silence me and others involved in the struggle of the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel to live in a state of all its citizens, not one that grants rights and privileges to Jews that it denies to non-Jews.

When Israel was established in 1948, more than 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled in fear. My family was among the minority that escaped that fate, remaining instead on the land where we had long lived. The Israeli state, established exclusively for Jews, embarked immediately on transforming us into foreigners in our own country.

For the first 18 years of Israeli statehood, we, as Israeli citizens, lived under military rule with pass laws that controlled our every movement. We watched Jewish Israeli towns spring up over destroyed Palestinian villages.

Today we make up 20% of Israel's population. We do not drink at separate water fountains or sit at the back of the bus. We vote and can serve in the parliament. But we face legal, institutional and informal discrimination in all spheres of life.

More than 20 Israeli laws explicitly privilege Jews over non-Jews. The Law of Return, for example, grants automatic citizenship to Jews from anywhere in the world. Yet Palestinian refugees are denied the right to return to the country they were forced to leave in 1948. The Basic Law of Human Dignity and Liberty — Israel's "Bill of Rights" — defines the state as "Jewish" rather than a state for all its citizens. Thus Israel is more for Jews living in Los Angeles or Paris than it is for native Palestinians.

Israel acknowledges itself to be a state of one particular religious group. Anyone committed to democracy will readily admit that equal citizenship cannot exist under such conditions.

Most of our children attend schools that are separate but unequal. According to recent polls, two-thirds of Israeli Jews would refuse to live next to an Arab and nearly half would not allow a Palestinian into their home.

I have certainly ruffled feathers in Israel. In addition to speaking out on the subjects above, I have also asserted the right of the Lebanese people, and of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, to resist Israel's illegal military occupation. I do not see those who fight for freedom as my enemies.

This may discomfort Jewish Israelis, but they cannot deny us our history and identity any more than we can negate the ties that bind them to world Jewry. After all, it is not we, but Israeli Jews who immigrated to this land. Immigrants might be asked to give up their former identity in exchange for equal citizenship, but we are not immigrants.

During my years in the Knesset, the attorney general indicted me for voicing my political opinions (the charges were dropped), lobbied to have my parliamentary immunity revoked and sought unsuccessfully to disqualify my political party from participating in elections — all because I believe Israel should be a state for all its citizens and because I have spoken out against Israeli military occupation. Last year, Cabinet member Avigdor Lieberman — an immigrant from Moldova — declared that Palestinian citizens of Israel "have no place here," that we should "take our bundles and get lost." After I met with a leader of the Palestinian Authority from Hamas, Lieberman called for my execution.

The Israeli authorities are trying to intimidate not just me but all Palestinian citizens of Israel. But we will not be intimidated. We will not bow to permanent servitude in the land of our ancestors or to being severed from our natural connections to the Arab world. Our community leaders joined together recently to issue a blueprint for a state free of ethnic and religious discrimination in all spheres. If we turn back from our path to freedom now, we will consign future generations to the discrimination we have faced for six decades.

Americans know from their own history of institutional discrimination the tactics that have been used against civil rights leaders. These include telephone bugging, police surveillance, political delegitimization and criminalization of dissent through false accusations. Israel is continuing to use these tactics at a time when the world no longer tolerates such practices as compatible with democracy.

Why then does the U.S. government continue to fully support a country whose very identity and institutions are based on ethnic and religious discrimination that victimize its own citizens?

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bishara3may03,0,5123721.story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adonis, (BTW, Snap! - good timing.)

You write : "...but [they] have abandoned the tactic of suicide bombing, which in my opinion is a very smart move as I see it as forbidden in Islam."

Godalmighty, man! Is that your only authority, or morality?

It makes me recall my distaste for all religions.

T.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adonis, (BTW, Snap! - good timing.)

You write : "...but [they] have abandoned the tactic of suicide bombing, which in my opinion is a very smart move as I see it as forbidden in Islam."

Godalmighty, man! Is that your only authority, or morality?

It makes me recall my distaste for all religions.

T.

Oh yeah, because the last 100 years has been a great indication of how people with ideologies of no religion and secularism have been a really great indication of what morality is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adonis, (BTW, Snap! - good timing.)

You write : "...but [they] have abandoned the tactic of suicide bombing, which in my opinion is a very smart move as I see it as forbidden in Islam."

Godalmighty, man! Is that your only authority, or morality?

It makes me recall my distaste for all religions.

T.

Oh yeah, because the last 100 years has been a great indication of how people with ideologies of no religion and secularism have been a really great indication of what morality is...

Adonis,

So it all comes down - in the end - to 'Man proposes, but God disposes': particularly with suffering, and death.

And your Book, and the other guy's Book contradict each other, and one of you must lose out.

Have you considered how much more mega-death would have happened in the 20th Century, if religious wars had occurred more often? Just as they did for centuries past? And will happen again? Secularism and tolerance prevented much of that.

Besides, war is freedom of expression, <_< and none of that will be allowed under any totalitarian regime, religious or secular.

It's a close call, but many of us would rather risk suffering or death to that.

Thank you; you have clarified further for me what is so wrong in the M.E., (what Israel is up against outside, as well as the crazy Jewish fundamentalists, within) when Man's mind and independence and morality is stifled by a 'Holy' Book.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adonis,

So it all comes down - in the end - to 'Man proposes, but God disposes': particularly with suffering, and death.

And your Book, and the other guy's Book contradict each other, and one of you must lose out.

Have you considered how much more mega-death would have happened in the 20th Century, if religious wars had occurred more often? Just as they did for centuries past? And will happen again? Secularism and tolerance prevented much of that.

Besides, war is freedom of expression, <_< and none of that will be allowed under any totalitarian regime, religious or secular.

It's a close call, but many of us would rather risk suffering or death to that.

Thank you; you have clarified further for me what is so wrong in the M.E., (what Israel is up against outside, as well as the crazy Jewish fundamentalists, within) when Man's mind and independence and morality is stifled by a 'Holy' Book.

Tony

Oh please... What a silly argument..

Yes, my book contradicts another person's book. But I'm happy to live and let live, let them practice what they want and I'll practice mine and in the next life God can decide. Though I don't doubt that if one sincerely seeks truth and the way to please their creator and is genuine in that whilst not harming innocent people and generally living a good life that they'd be forgiven and will get to paradise.. God is Merciful..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, my book contradicts another person's book. But I'm happy to live and let live, let them practice what they want and I'll practice mine and in the next life God can decide. Though I don't doubt that if one sincerely seeks truth and the way to please their creator and is genuine in that whilst not harming innocent people and generally living a good life that they'd be forgiven and will get to paradise.. God is Merciful..

Adonis,

If I were a member of an organized religion, this is exactly the view I would hold.

Character counts for a lot more than the formal divisions people inherit or make amongst themselves.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this kind of savagery does not advance your cause either:

http://www.nytimes.c...Nigeriabrf.html

Adam

I just read that reference. What can I say? There goes your Muslim; different mountain, different god. The Jihadis do the bloodletting and the burning and the "moderate" Muslims stand idly by.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read that reference. What can I say? There goes your Muslim; different mountain, different god. The Jihadis do the bloodletting and the burning and the "moderate" Muslims stand idly by.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I don't think any of you quite understand the dynamics of Nigeria and what's happening there. But let's see how Islam has been a force for positive change where not only secularism failed, but where the whole world sat idly by whilst genocide was being committed.

Islam Attracting Many Survivors of Rwanda Genocide

Jihad Is Taught as 'Struggle to Heal'

By Emily Wax

Washington Foreign Post Service

Monday, September 23, 2002; Page A10

RUHENGERI, Rwanda -- The villagers with their forest green head wraps and forest green Korans arrived at the mosque on a rainy Sunday afternoon for a lecture for new converts. There was one main topic: jihad.

They found their seats and flipped to the right page. Hands flew in the air. People read passages aloud. And the word jihad -- holy struggle -- echoed again and again through the dark, leaky room.

It wasn't the kind of jihad that has been in the news since Sept. 11, 2001. There were no references to Osama bin Laden, the World Trade Center or suicide bombers. Instead there was only talk of April 6, 1994, the first day of the state-sponsored genocide in which ethnic Hutu extremists killed 800,000 minority Tutsis and Hutu moderates.

"We have our own jihad, and that is our war against ignorance between Hutu and Tutsi. It is our struggle to heal," said Saleh Habimana, the head mufti of Rwanda. "Our jihad is to start respecting each other and living as Rwandans and as Muslims."

Since the genocide, Rwandans have converted to Islam in huge numbers. Muslims now make up 14 percent of the 8.2 million people here in Africa's most Catholic nation, twice as many as before the killings began.

Many converts say they chose Islam because of the role that some Catholic and Protestant leaders played in the genocide. Human rights groups have documented several incidents in which Christian clerics allowed Tutsis to seek refuge in churches, then surrendered them to Hutu death squads, as well as instances of Hutu priests and ministers encouraging their congregations to kill Tutsis. Today some churches serve as memorials to the many people slaughtered among their pews.

Four clergymen are facing genocide charges at the U.N.-created International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and last year in Belgium, the former colonial power, two Rwandan nuns were convicted of murder for their roles in the massacre of 7,000 Tutsis who sought protection at a Benedictine convent.

In contrast, many Muslim leaders and families are being honored for protecting and hiding those who were fleeing.

Some say Muslims did this because of the religion's strong dictates against murder, though Christian doctrine proscribes it as well. Others say Muslims, always considered an ostracized minority, were not swept up in the Hutus' campaign of bloodshed and were unafraid of supporting a cause they felt was honorable.

"I know people in America think Muslims are terrorists, but for Rwandans they were our freedom fighters during the genocide," said Jean Pierre Sagahutu, 37, a Tutsi who converted to Islam from Catholicism after his father and nine other members of his family were slaughtered. "I wanted to hide in a church, but that was the worst place to go. Instead, a Muslim family took me. They saved my life."

Sagahutu said his father had worked at a hospital where he was friendly with a Muslim family. They took Sagahutu in, even though they were Hutus. "I watched them pray five times a day. I ate with them and I saw how they lived," he said. "When they pray, Hutu and Tutsi are in the same mosque. There is no difference. I needed to see that."

Islam has long been a religion of the downtrodden. In the Middle East and South Asia, the religion has had a strong focus on outreach to the poor and tackling social ills by banning alcohol and encouraging sexual modesty. In the United States, Malcolm X used a form of Islam to encourage economic and racial empowerment among blacks.

Muslim leaders say they have a natural constituency in Rwanda, where AIDS and poverty have replaced genocide as the most daunting problems. "Islam fits into the fabric of our society. It helps those who are in poverty. It preaches against behaviors that create AIDS. It offers education in the Koran and Arabic when there is not a lot of education being offered," said Habimana, the chief mufti. "I think people can relate to Islam. They are converting as a sign of appreciation to the Muslim community who sheltered them during the genocide."

While Western governments worry that the growth of Islam carries with it the danger of militancy, there are few signs of militant Islam in Rwanda. Nevertheless, some government officials quietly express concern that some of the mosques receive funding from Saudi Arabia, whose dominant Wahhabi sect has been embraced by militant groups in other parts of the world. They also worry that high poverty rates and a traumatized population make Rwanda the perfect breeding ground for Islamic extremism.

But Nish Imiyimana, an imam here in Ruhengeri, about 45 miles northwest of Kigali, the capital, contends: "We have enough of our own problems. We don't want a bomb dropped on us by America. We want American NGOs [nongovernmental organizations] to come and build us hospitals instead."

Imams across the country held meetings after Sept. 11, 2001, to clarify what it means to be a Muslim. "I told everyone, 'Islam means peace,' " said Imiyimana, recalling that the mosque was packed that day. "Considering our track record, it wasn't hard to convince them."

That fact worries the Catholic church. Priests here said they have asked for advice from church leaders in Rome about how to react to the number of converts to Islam.

"The Catholic church has a problem after genocide," said the Rev. Jean Bosco Ntagugire, who works at Kigali churches. "The trust has been broken. We can't say, 'Christians come back.' We have to hope that happens when faith builds again."

To help make that happen, the Catholic church has started to offer youth sports programs and camping trips, Ntagugire said. But Muslims are also reaching out, even forming women's groups that provide classes on child care and being a mother.

At a recent class here, hundreds of women dressed in red, orange and purple head coverings gathered in a dark clay building. They talked about their personal struggle, or jihad, to raise their children well. And afterward, during a lunch of beans and chicken legs, they ate heartily and shared stories about how Muslims saved them during the genocide.

"If it weren't for the Muslims, my whole family would be dead," said Aisha Uwimbabazi, 27, a convert and mother of two children. "I was very, very thankful for Muslim people during the genocide. I thought about it and I really felt it was right to change."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53018-2002Sep22.html

Edited by Adonis Vlahos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, my book contradicts another person's book. But I'm happy to live and let live, let them practice what they want and I'll practice mine and in the next life God can decide. Though I don't doubt that if one sincerely seeks truth and the way to please their creator and is genuine in that whilst not harming innocent people and generally living a good life that they'd be forgiven and will get to paradise.. God is Merciful..

Adonis,

If I were a member of an organized religion, this is exactly the view I would hold.

Character counts for a lot more than the formal divisions people inherit or make amongst themselves.

Michael

Michael, I sincerely believe you would have the same views my friend. You seem to have the same ideas as I in many things. It's a pleasure discussing this with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adonis:

Actually, some of us know quite a bit about the "dynamics" of Nigeria. We were in the process of signing a contract with the Nigerian government way back to deliver pre-fabricated ob-gyn units that could be helicoptered in and assembled.

This of course would have been quite beneficial to the citizens of Nigeria and then the "government" collapsed. It has been a complexity of corruption and chaos ever since. So the "dynamics" of allegedly torching a Christian church is a "dynamic" that we kinda just have to get used to?

The world of Islam sure looks really good through those rose-colored glasses that you seem to peer at it through.

I must be missing an argument here. It appears to be similar to the argument launched by collectivism which is that it will work beautifully if the pesky "dynamics" of human's innate desire to be free to pursue their own destiny could just be changed.

Islam has a tough sell to me as a religion of "peace". Christianity sure as hell falls short.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This of course would have been quite beneficial to the citizens of Nigeria and then the "government" collapsed. It has been a complexity of corruption and chaos ever since. So the "dynamics" of allegedly torching a Christian church is a "dynamic" that we kinda just have to get used to?

Absolutely not and don't attribute such a thought to me..

The problems in Nigeria are not religion based, they're tribal and it's about money and power. Not about Islam and Christianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problems in Nigeria are not religion based, they're tribal and it's about money and power. Not about Islam and Christianity.

ohhhh. Of course not! See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Of course. No True Scotsman would eat his mother's liver.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now