The Israeli-Palestinian issue

[jeffrey smith]

The problem I have with Adonis not what he says he believes, but rather his apparently uncritical acceptance of what "his" side says regarding Israel and the Palestinians. If he actually went looking for the facts...

Jeff,

Are you kidding me? Adonis actually does go looking for facts. He's over here. You're certainly not over where he is.

And look what "facts" you (and others) are giving him. Claims that he's a Jew-hater who refuses to understand and wants another Holocaust. And you spice it with refusal to look at his facts.

This is so easy to fix, I am amazed that people don't do it. Especially on a forum devoted to reason.

Look at claims objectively and present objective facts.

There. That's the answer.

You don't need to do anything else. If that does not reach Adonis, you reach the reader.

In this respect and from what I have read, he has been doing a lot better (and that means a lot by far) at reaching the independent readers of this thread than those who rebut him. That is, until he starts that anti-Israel Zionism scapegoating stuff. That really undermines him with independents when he does that.

I can almost sense people turning off during the hostilities you guys fling back and forth.

Why not do like Dershowitz did in The Case for Israel? Here is a quote from p. 7:

I respond to the accusation with hard facts backed up by credible evidence. In presenting the facts, I do not generally rely on pro-Israel sources but primarily on objective, and sometimes to emphasize the point, overtly anti-Israel sources.

Now that's rational.

Instead I have been reading the "speculation presented as fact" system of argument and watching it inflame all around.

There is one thing I don't think the anti-Adonis posters here get. His reference for knowledge is not Ayn Rand or Little Green Footballs. He lives in another community where people--many of them very good people--discuss current issues, etc., from a different perspective--from a Muslim perspective.

The only way to penetrate that perspective is with facts. You won't reach everyone, just those open to facts. And that's true outside the Muslim world. That's just the way people are. Some are hard-liners and some are independent thinkers.

The purpose of discussion is to reach and interact with independent thinkers. They are the ones who change the world for the better.

There is one surefire way to close off examination of the facts: present a different point of view and call the people you are talking to evil garbage when they present their point of view. How do you expect to communicate that way?

Then there is the issue of glossing over the facts Adonis presents. I mentioned that he glosses over the facts I present, but I have seen people do the same with him, over and over.

The only effective way to answer facts is with other facts. Better ones if you can find them. You compare them. You judge them. You judge the sources. Then you come to rational conclusions.

But you do not ignore facts, regardless of where they come from.

There is no other way.

If you present facts from sources like Dershowitz gives and the person says, "I refuse to look at those facts," or presents propaganda slogans as rebuttal, then--and only then--do you have a right to say he is not open to facts.

Vice-versa, that same principle applies to you, to me, to everyone.

So Adonis, by adopting the full pro Palestinian position, is condemning racism on the one hand but justifying a specific application of racism on the other hand. That doesn't mean he's a hypocrite, but the most charitable interpretation that we can adopt is willful ignorance--refusal to fully understand the facts and the implications of the position he's adopting. And the full implications of the Palestinian position include a new Holocaust aimed at the Jews of Israel.

You call "refusal to fully understand the facts and the implications" which leads to "a new Holocaust" a charitable interpretation?

Good Lord! What would bashing look like?

What you said is speculation presented as fact. That is exactly what I am talking about. You don't even know how Adonis arrived at his conclusions or whether he is open to looking at other sources and perspectives or not. Your premise is that you already know.

In my view, that is poor speculation at best. But I don't think it is poor speculation. I think it is casting stones.

Michael

The problem with Adonis is that he goes looking for facts only among one type of source--those that back the Palestinian side. He's shown no indication that he's encountered sources of any other nature--not pro-Israeli sources, not sources that at least make an honest attempt to report the facts impartially. It's rather like reading an rabble rousing Arab newspaper. He seems to be unwilling to look at any sources which might differ from his preferred narrative, almost all of which is anti-Israel/Zionism scapegoating.

Had he not confined himself to this sort of information source, he would know that much of what he's recited as history is untrue. He'd know that to talk of the Allies going to war against Hitler for the sake of the Jews is fantasy, that to talk of Israeli massacres of Arabs in 1948 beyond the solitary instance of Deir Yassin is rubbish. He'd know that Arabs resorted to communal violence a number of times during the British Mandate--I linked upthread to the Wiki articles relating to that. He'd know that the Christian Palestinians are being persecuted by their Muslim fellow Palestinians. He'd know, in short, that all the crimes and sins of which he accuses Israel, have their exact parallel on the Palestinian side. He condemns Israeli racism, but seems unaware of its mirror image, Palestinian racism.

He supports the Palestinian goals wholeheartedly. Unfortunately the Palestinian goals are not to live in peace with the Jews in some sort of peaceful Holy Land; the Palestinian goal is a Palestine that is ethnically cleansed of Jews, where at best a small number of Jews are allowed to live on sufferance by a Muslim majority. This is openly declared by Hamas and similar groups, and the only counter to this by Palestinian Authority are statements and promises aimed at American/European audiences, not aimed at their own people. This may be because the PA really shares the same goal; or it may be because the PA feels incapable of pressing the issue and doesn't want to enter a fight it knows it will lose. If you're not familiar with the MEMRI website, I think a visit there would be instructive.

Yes, people who support the Palestinians may not realize this through being unaware of the actual facts. They may be aware of it, but believe that a Palestinian state is still just or necessary, once the Palestinians jettison the program of genocide--and usually these people state their opinion fairly plainly. I haven't seen Adonis do that. The only other possibility is that they are aware of the facts, and don't care or actually support the goal of a Jew-free Israel. So, yes, to say that Adonis is willfully ignorant of the facts of the matter is the charitable alternative. If I were wanting to bash him thoroughly, I'd adopt the alternative and state he knowingly supports a genocidal program. But I'm not. He's condemned suicide bombing, and racism in principle, so I will readily ascribe his support of intended genocide and active racism on the part of the Palestinians to ignorance and not malice.

You will notice, if you go back through this thread, that there is stuff even on this issue on which he and I agree--most importantly, the issue of Israeli settlements--and where I agree with him (or at least think he has a valid argument on his side) I have said so. I've looked at his facts, if I'm not already familiar with them. But on the larger issue I think he is just reflexively reciting what he hears from Muslim anti-Israel sources.

Jeffrey S.

Edited February 12, 2010 by jeffrey smith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

What sources have you provided Adonis?

You just mentioned MEMRI. Here is a statement from Wikipedia on MEMRI:

MEMRI was co-founded in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, a former colonel in Israeli military intelligence, and another Israeli Meyrav Wurmser.

. . .

Several critics have accused MEMRI of selectivity stating that it consistently picks for translation and dissemination the most extreme views from Arabic and Persian media, which portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, while ignoring moderate views that are often found in the same media outlets.

Do you understand that this may not be the first source of information a Muslim would turn to for objectivity? Or even an independent?

Sure, there will be radical Islamist stuff there, and rightly so. But from first blush to someone not familiar with it, it looks like the whole approach will be slanted that way. Sort of like watching MSNBC about conservatives.

You criticize the sources Adonis uses. Is this is the best you can do as a response that you think would convince him--or an independent person reading this thread--of anything?

Don't worry about holding Adonis to the same standard. He has to meet it, too, if he hopes to be taken seriously. The bar is the same for everyone.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael and others are attempting to have an honest debate/discussion of this issue.

What are the historical "facts" that both "sides" can agree upon?

Palestine began on or about XYZ date Israel began on or about XYZ date

That would be a start.

For example, this was floating around today:

(IsraelNN.com) The ancient precursor of the Old City road leading from Jaffa Gate to Mt. Zion has been uncovered -- exactly where a famous ancient Mosaic map says it should be.

http://www.israelnat...ews.aspx/135956

Can that be agreed to by both parties?

Also, Michael makes an excellent point about "evidence/facts", a "fact" that supports your argument that you find in an opposition source is golden.

Negative evidence is extremely probatively powerful.

Finally, the best way to prepare your case is to vehemently argue and construct the oppositions case as if it was your own.

Let's begin.

Adam

Edited February 12, 2010 by Selene

[jeffrey smith]

Jeff,

What sources have you provided Adonis?

You just mentioned MEMRI. Here is a statement from Wikipedia on MEMRI:

MEMRI was co-founded in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, a former colonel in Israeli military intelligence, and another Israeli Meyrav Wurmser.

. . .

Several critics have accused MEMRI of selectivity stating that it consistently picks for translation and dissemination the most extreme views from Arabic and Persian media, which portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, while ignoring moderate views that are often found in the same media outlets.

Do you understand that this may not be the first source of information a Muslim would turn to for objectivity? Or even an independent?

Sure, there will be radical Islamist stuff there, and rightly so. But from first blush to someone not familiar with it, it looks like the whole approach will be slanted that way. Sort of like watching MSNBC about conservatives.

You criticize the sources Adonis uses. Is this is the best you can do as a response that you think would convince him--or an independent person reading this thread--of anything?

Don't worry about holding Adonis to the same standard. He has to meet it, too, if he hopes to be taken seriously. The bar is the same for everyone.

Michael

You mean radical Islamist stuff like this?

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3960.htm

Al-Ahram Board of Directors: Boycott All Israelis

At a meeting of the Al-Ahram board of directors, many, including Al-Ahram Al-Iqtisadi magazine editor Anwar Al-Hawari, called for firing Dr. Mustafa,[5] but board chairman 'Abd Al-Mun'im Sa'id decided that she would only be investigated.[6] Furthermore, a boycott of all Israelis was declared at the board meeting. It was also decided to ban Israelis of all ranks from entering the Al-Ahram building – from ordinary individuals to diplomats to senior officials – and to ban journalists from holding conferences and conventions or conducting joint research with Israelis. The board even called on the Egyptian parliament to reconsider Dr. Mustafa's appointment as Al-Dimuqratiya editor.

Al-Ahram chief editor Osama Gheith denied that the move to boycott Israelis was racist or discriminatory, saying: "Al-Ahram is a cultural lighthouse of Egypt and of the Arab world; it respects the individual, whatever his religion. Al-Ahram respects dialogue and discussion, but the Israeli people has distanced itself from human values, and has voted for an Israeli government made up of extremists who oppose peace and support terrorism, destruction, and murder." Gheith added that Al-Ahram opposed normalization with Israel and receiving Israelis within its gates until peace was established, and until Israel withdrew from all occupied Arab land.

The context is an Egyptian journalist who met with the Israeli ambassador. This is in Egypt, the country that actually has a peace treaty with Israel.

If MEMRI is cherrypicking, then it's cherrypicking among government spokespeople and establishment figures for most of its content; when it runs something from an extremist, it labels them as extremist and it runs full translations, so all the qualifications and nuances of a statement are given to the leader. For instance, another article gives a video of a PA minister declaring that jihad will never end--but it provides the full video, so you also get to see his statement that sometimes violence is not appropriate for jihads, which makes a big difference in what he means. The fact to be established is not how influential moderate voices are or are not; the fact to be established was how Adonis' claims are run of the mill statements from the Arab side, without any apparent awareness that some of his information is, to put it mildly, inaccurate.

And I have supplied facts; if I don't provide a precise citation for something I say, it's because I'm referring to something that is, or should be, common knowledge, such as the maximalist rejection of Israel contained in the Hamas charter.

Jeffrey S.

[jeffrey smith]

Michael and others are attempting to have an honest debate/discussion of this issue.

What are the historical "facts" that both "sides" can agree upon?

Palestine began on or about XYZ date Israel began on or about XYZ date

That would be a start.

For example, this was floating around today:

(IsraelNN.com) The ancient precursor of the Old City road leading from Jaffa Gate to Mt. Zion has been uncovered -- exactly where a famous ancient Mosaic map says it should be.

http://www.israelnat...ews.aspx/135956

Can that be agreed to by both parties?

Also, Michael makes an excellent point about "evidence/facts", a "fact" that supports your argument that you find in an opposition source is golden.

Negative evidence is extremely probatively powerful.

Finally, the best way to prepare your case is to vehemently argue and construct the oppositions case as if it was your own.

Let's begin.

Adam

The article itself is unexceptionable, but it does illustrate the perils of figuring what's going on in the Middle East, becase it's from Arutz Sheva, which is essentially the media outlet for the religious settler movement, the folks who, for instance, thought that leaving the settlements in Gaza was not just a bad thing to do from the political and military standpoint, but also a grave national sin which invites God to pour his wrath down on Israel, and are willing to destroy the Israeli army and government to make sure that they can hold on to their West Bank settlements: they think God told them to live there (and incidentally, bully and sometimes commit violence on neighboring Arabs). Anything they say, and anything published in Arutz Sheva, should be treated as highly biased against the Arabs.

Jeffrey S.

[Selene]

Jeffrey:

That was my point, I have friends and clients on both sides of this historical death match.

Honestly, do you believe that we could get a decent historical time line that you and Adonis could voluntarily sign onto which would allow us all an agreed set of facts.

We can, of course, include the various conflicts initiated at different periods, the massacres on both sides.

For example, the within the last 36 hours, "A Palestinian policeman who stabbed to death an Israeli soldier in the West Bank said he was "tired of living", an Israeli general said on Thursday, indicating a suicidal motive for the attack.

Mahmoud Khatib, 34, killed Ihab Chattib, a career non-commissioned officer from Israel's Druse Arab minority, at a road junction in the occupied territory on Wednesday. This has a good chance of igniting a mini intifada.

Adam

Edited February 12, 2010 by Selene

[anthony]

We can wade through a blizzard of facts about who did what to whom, and when and why. These facts are on record, and some have appeared here.

The arguments from history have been presented by both sides, with no one giving an inch. What did that gain?

Just as I doubt and dispute many of the facts Adonis has presented, so I have learned to doubt his motivations.

Remember that his first word on this debate was "No".

I was very willing, on the basis of "forgive him, he knows not what he does", to make allowances for youthful idealism, lack of full knowledge, and possible influence by cynical elements.

But all I've seen is increasing arrogance, and "oh please!" as answers.

My vehemence on this subject has been misunderstood as hatred and bigotry. There's that story about breakfast: the hen is involved, but the pig is committed.

Well I'm committed; not because a family member died in 1967 in the Sinai - in fact this is superfluous information.

But because I deeply understand what the Jews came from, and where they want to go. Simultaneously, I have felt constant compassion for the people of Palestine, and all Jews that I know feel likewise.

This is respect for human dignity.

Where does it exist in the Palestinians?

I refuse to accept (even by implication) the label of hateful bigot. My contempt is against those who hate so much that they see no wrong in untold death, just to satisfy their injured pride.

Since I cannot be coldly and factually 'academic' about this topic, I'd best stay out.

Tony

[Libertarian Muslim]

Michael, please understand that my issue was not with what you wrote, your input on this thread has been pretty limited compared to the other thread and I've agreed with much of it.. My issue was instead with you not intervening when personal insults and wild and slanderous accusations are being thrown around which I really don't have so much of an issue with now because it appears that you have indeed done so since I raised my concern.. Thank you for that..

The thing is that I don't really want to waste my time on this forum if all I'm going to have to do is keep fighting misrepresentations of what I'm saying by people who's only only know how to win an argument by getting on top of a mountain and screaming how the person they are debating is a genocidal maniac who wants to murder all Jews when it's so blatantly clear otherwise.. I am totally sick of being misrepresented and the way that this constantly happens on here annoys me.

I came on here to clarify what my understanding of the Islamic position of many issues is including about Libertarianism.. I don't have to speak about politics here, in fact I don't really want to because I don't like wasting my time debating with rabid Zionists like some of the people who are on this thread.

Everything is the Palestinians fault to people like Leonid, Jeffry Smith, WhyNot and Ba'al...

Even though it was the Israeli's that made a secret deal with the French and British to start the Suez War in 1956 so that the French and English could 'intervene' to protect their interests because Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal which was their right to do as it runs through their country. Check for yourself and you'll see that's true.. Research the Protocol of Sèvres

The Israelis were the also the first to attack the Egyptians and Syrians in 1967 and had been training for those operations for at least 2 years earlier, the reason they won was because they attacked Egypt, Jordan and Syria separately starting with Egypt and working their way to fight the Jordanians and then the Syrians.

The fact is that the only war that the Arabs nations launched out of those mentioned previously was the 1973 war where Egypt took the Canal back and negotiated for the rest of their territories in the Sinai back and the Syrians also got involved too.

Yet there is constant cries that they Arabs have always attacked the Israelis and by some miracle due to the devotion of their peace loving Israeliness, ingrained in their blood and free from all sins and possibly even from the biological need of farting, they have, against all odds defeated their bloodthirsty Arab aggressors..

They say that the Arabs don't stick to ceasefires but it was the Israelis who broke all of the recent ceasefires including the Oslo accords which would have led to a peace agreement by building more and more settlements.. Peace negotiations for them have turned into stalling tactics to build as many settlements as they can so that they can then claim that they can't give too much of the West Bank up because their citizens live there..

They say that the Palestinians and Arabs don't want peace and only want genocide and they give the reason that if it were true, the Palestinians wouldn't have rejected the amazing peace offer that they were given in 2000 where they were going to get all the occupied territories back in return for peace.. That's absolute rubbish and it's a smoking mirror... The Palestinians weren't offered a state, they were offered a piece of land that had no sovereignty, being unable to control their own airspace and borders as they would have come under Israeli authority, would any of us accept our country's airspace or borders controlled by a foreign power? Absolutely not, that's not a state at all..

Let's fast forward a little, they say that the Israelis closed the settlements in Gaza and that's a great thing, but what did they close? They took those settlements and moved them all to the West Bank and built even more on top of that.. What type of honor is that?

So the Palestinians resist the treatment they're getting and vote in Hamas as their government which has proven itself in terms of grass roots work and anti corruption and so the Israelis and West punish the people of Gaza for exercising their rights..

They say that the Palestinians in Gaza deserve the treatment, war and destruction they get from the Israeli government because they elected Hamas into power.. Yet when Al Qaeda says that it's okay to kill US citizens because they elected their government into power that is occupying the Holy Land and in other places it's not okay..

So I hope you can understand that from that I and others take a simple message..

It's okay to kill and oppress Arabs if you're an Israeli or an American, even if you're occupying their land because they voted in a government that is against you,

but it's definitely not okay to kill Americans or Israelis if you're an Arab, even if they're occupying your land and support their government by voting them in..

Now I'm not in any way supportive of Al Qaeda, but they aren't the only ones who use those tactics, so do the Israelis and Americans yet it then becomes okay for them to do so..

Is that how people like those who have such mentalities intend to win the Arabs and Muslims over? By using such blatant hypocrisy they are showing the Arabs and Muslims that the West believes that their lives are worth less than the Arabs and Muslims and that they are not equal? Yet you then wonder why Al Qaeda gets recruits?

They don't attack the US and other countries because they hate your freedoms, they don't give a damn about that and it's such a cop out to say so..

They care about having the US occupying their lands and supporting the brutal dictatorships and monarchs there just so you can have stability to be able to get access to their natural resources at competitive prices while also preventing a superpower from emerging in those lands that could threaten US Superiority in the region, they care about not being able to have input into their own system and about not being able to change it because when they try, a Western backed and trained secret police officer takes them away, puts them in prison, tortures them and threatens to murder their family and tribe, if they are lucky they don't get killed, they just languish in prison for a number of years for an obscure crime like 'inciting hatred of the monarchy'.

I don't believe the creation of Israel was just without a proper agreement from the Arabs and view it as a military occupation, but that doesn't mean I want to see war.. It's been far too long and this needs to be sorted out ASAP before more war occurs.. I just want to see a just peace agreement in place so that the Palestinians and Israelis can both have a state.. The Arab Peace Initiative is a very good deal and won't end in Israel's suicide, they have more than 200 nuclear warheads that guarantee their existence. The Palestinians also aren't genocidal and everyone knows it, it's just a typical ploy of Zionists who use this and try and compare it to the Holocaust just to ensure they get political support..

How truly disgusting that the memory of such a horrific event and all of the victims are being exploited by people who are doing the same things to the Palestinians as many Jewish Holocaust survivors have recently come out and said... Have these people no shame?

Here's a documentary called Defamation by Yoav Shamir, an Israeli who exposed the type of behavior that certain people on the forum display..

Defamation by Yoav Shamir

To be quite honest I have far better things to do than to waste my time with rabid Zionists like Ba'al, Whynot, Jeffry Smith and Leonid who don't even look at my sources, but just throw up the same old lines.. This discussion doesn't benefit me at all so why waste my time?

I may just stick to the Islam threads and leave the rabid Zionists to themselves.. I'm over it..

Edited February 12, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adonis,

Well, it is true that I asked for independent sources so that independent readers could get a sense of fairness.

Jeffrey basically said he didn't need to do that because what he says is or should be "common knowledge." Tony prefers not to "wade through a blizzard of facts" and instead doubt your motivations.

These are not good enough standards for me on issues outside the Israeli-Palestinean conflict. I certainly would not use these standards if I were diagnosed with, say, cancer, or if I wanted to buy a house and wanted information on it or if I wanted information on any other topic. So I see no reason to accept these standards for this one.

I imagine many other people outside the hostilities think as I do. Actually, I know many do.

These guys have their own values, which is their right, but one thing is clear. They are not interested in convincing me--and others like me--of anything. I have made it clear what I need for being convinced and they blew it off.

So in my journey for information, I see no need to consult these gentlemen. They are not reliable sources of information on the Israeli-Palestinean conflict according to the standards I use for every other area of my life and insist on using for this topic.

You just presented a lot of claims and interpretations, some of which I agree with, but some of which I would like to clarify and even out what I perceive as lopsidedness, but I don't see a reason for you to be a lone person in a discussion with several people insuilting you with anti-intellectual behavior from all angles. I do not want that for me. I do not want that for your critics. And I do not want that for you.

So, like you, I will wait for another opportunity when rational discussion is possible.

I do have one comment, though. Even with my reservations, I have to note that you cited an Israeli film maker, Yoav Shamir. I skimmed some things on the Internet about him and it appears that his documentary, Defamation, has as theme that Israeli identity should be based on more than fear and hatred. That there is a danger in being identified mostly on the basis of persecution. That's just my impression so far, but if it is accurate, that is a good theme. I will watch the film (and I still need to finish watching that other documentary you gave).

In terms of sources and in terms of the information reliability standards I hold, I have to observe that here you beat your critics hands down. You came up to the bar. They refused to.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

I do have one comment, though. Even with my reservations, I have to note that you cited an Israeli film maker, Yoav Shamir. I skimmed some things on the Internet about him and it appears that his documentary, Defamation, has as theme that Israeli identity should be based on more than fear and hatred. That there is a danger in being identified mostly on the basis of persecution. That's just my impression so far, but if it is accurate, that is a good theme. I will watch the film (and I still need to finish watching that other documentary you gave).

In terms of sources and in terms of the information reliability standards I hold, I have to observe that here you beat your critics hands down. You came up to the bar. They refused to.

Michael

Thank you Michael, I am glad you agree..

I really do agree with Yoav Shamir in terms of his observations about a lot of Jews making their identity one of being persecuted.. I have worked in interfaith for years and unfortunately there have been many Jews, most of which were also Zionists who straight away would bring up how they've been persecuted and make this a part of their identity and they display huge oversensitivity's like for one example at a conference in 2007, a Catholic Priest called for the Muslims, Christians and Jews to line up next to each other so that each person could be partnered with a person of another faith and then some of the Jews were up in arms, getting so offended that they were asked to 'line up' as if what we were doing had any connection to the genocide which is just ridiculous.

Jews have a lot to be proud of in terms of their contribution to this world in many fields including sciences and it's something that all people can admire.. But if they make their identity only that of a persecuted people and try and shame innocent people who question the actions of Israel constantly into submitting to them by calling them anti semites, then THAT will create anti semitism and resentment..

At that conference I witnessed many things and a lot happened after that like some of the Zionists there starting to claim I was a religious extremist who shouldn't be allowed near young Muslim students etc and slandering me behind my back saying that I said all Jews had no right to live and should die etc..

Which is silly, I had presented on a topic at the event along with a Christian and Jew which was the typical format, at only 22 at the time I was the youngest to ever present at this international conference and I presented on the Reconciliation of Memories aspect..

Before I spoke a Christian woman spoke and then a Jew named Manny Waks who was the Executive Officer of the Anti Defamation Commission then spoke.. Manny got up and was immediately quite hostile, saying that he didn't want to do interfaith dialogue with anyone who believed that it should be a one state solution, with anyone who believed that Hezbollah had the right to fight against the occupation of their lands in Southern Lebanon nor to secure the release of thousands of Lebanese civilians who were taken prisoner by the Israelis.. It was quite harsh and made everyone uncomfortable because it wasn't geared towards reconciliation and dialogue at all, it was geared towards him not wanting to speak to anyone except those who agree with him.. Which is not dialogue.. Up until this point, I had written no speech and I was immediately after him.. So as he was talking I jotted down some talking points and then spoke.. Below is as much of a transcription that I have of my presentation..

In the Name of God the Most Gracious the Most Merciful

Firstly I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners of this land and also acknowledge the genocide that has been committed by the British and Australian Governments against them and I would encourage all of us to recognise this great injustice and work towards a solution to it.

Now in regards to reconciliation, and in particular reconciliation between the Abrahamic faiths, you will notice that through Nola (the Christian presenter) we have seen the theology behind such a move, and from Manny (the Jewish presenter) we have heard of his personal experiences in the Israeli army and what it was like growing up being Jewish. I will now present on the 'where to from here' aspect of reconciliation, how can we implement this for ourselves.

Malcolm X, may God accept him as a Martyr, who was a champion for the civil and human rights of the 22 million African Americans, who were themselves the descendents of more than 12 million Africans, kidnapped and forced into slavery for more than 400 years by white colonialists, stated at the height of the tension between White and Black America during the 60's that for this tension and enmity to cease, both the White man, and the Black man need to be able to sit together at the same table, as equals and discuss issues openly, without fear of hurting each others' feelings.

I think personally that's a very powerful statement, because even though his father had been killed by the Ku Klux Klan, a group of white fanatical "Christians", he and his brothers and sisters were taken out of their mothers care by the government that promoted segregation, they were divided and sent to foster homes. Even though he and his family suffered so much due to the actions of the white man, I find it amazing that he was still willing to work together to fix the problems that were dividing White and Black America from living together as a unified and cohesive country.

I also find this statement very relevant to the situation that we are in today. The question is how do we achieve such a relationship amongst ourselves and be comfortable enough with each other so that we can speak without fear of hurting each other?

Well the first and most important step, is to actually have some dialogue, no matter how minute it is, it's good to start with that. This conference is a perfect example of starting off with some dialogue. Now, in our communication and experiences together, we are building rapport with each other. The important thing here is to be especially sensitive to the issues that really affect the other parties that we are dealing with, because especially at this stage, trust may not have been built up and thus if we unintentionally offend the other party by being insensitive to them, they will be suspicious that you had done it to intentionally hurt their feelings. At the same time it's important to understand that we MUST have patience with each other.

You see the relationship we share with each other in our Interfaith Relationship is very much like a marriage. Like marriage, it is very important requirement to keep the fabric of society working together. It is also similar because like any marriage, you are really going to get sick of each other sometimes. But your love for each other and love for God will cause you to struggle further, to work harder for the greater good of keeping the sanctity of the family unit. Because without the family unit what is there? There is only chaos and for the sake of the children, all of our children we need to keep it together. We do this not for us, but for their future.

Soon will come a time when we are comfortable enough with each other to be able to discuss the issues that are affecting us, and our relationship towards each other, to discuss how these issues make us feel and why we are sensitive to them. If one party has in some way wronged another, then it is important that the offending group not play the blame game and try and justify their actions by saying "well you did such and such" etc. They need to accept that they have wronged another. A wrong is a wrong and a sin is a sin, oppression is oppression and terrorism is terrorism, in the Sight of God, these are all sins that are never justifiable, we cannot accept them being committed in our name, because God would never accept oppression or terrorism being done in His. Neither in Judaism, Christianity or Islam are any such sins allowed, therefore its time to stop the emotional responses and use the patience all of the prophet's peace be upon them have shown when they were being persecuted. Therefore it is important that the offending party acknowledges their wrongdoing and shows an intention to right the wrong that they committed.

The next step is that after the wrong has been acknowledged, that every effort must be made to rectify the situation, both parties need to engage in dialogue with each other so that they can both come to an agreement of reasonable compensation, whether it be compensation with a sum of 'blood money', memorials, a national day of remembrance, education in schools or a combination of the above. Now this is one of the hardest parts of the process, because it will require negotiation and even compromise on both sides, both sides will need to compromise on what they consider is a reasonable form of compensation, now it's important to realise that on both sides they won't be able to get everything they wanted in these negotiations. But the importance there is for both parties to come up with a reasonable solution so that they can both move on together. Once this compensation has been agreed upon, then both sides need to take immediate steps to adhere to the agreement.

Once it has been established that the side that has been guilty of crimes against the other has stuck to the agreement and taken active steps to rectify the crime that was made, relations between the two parties should be normalised. This is important to do as a good will gesture to ensure that good relations can continue into the future. Having said that, it is not appropriate for the side that has been wronged, to continue to bring up the previous wrongs that the other party has committed as a means to continuously guilt them and remind them of past crimes if active steps are being taken to rectify the situation. If this is done, as in any marriage it will only leave the party that has committed the wrong to believe that no matter what they do they will never be able to please you and they will eventually give up. Such behaviours will also breed resentment and may very well lead you back into conflict. This does not mean we will forget the atrocities that have been committed, there is a difference between forgiving and forgetting and all of the Prophets (peace be upon them all) preached forgiveness.

Let me tell you what's at stake. Right now we have a world full injustice. The majority of the world lives in adverse poverty, they are oppressed either through foreign military occupation by resource greedy governments or by the economic imperialism by multinational corporations which are backed by those very same governments. Right now in sub-Saharan Africa millions of people are dying from preventable causes such as bad quality water, they suffering from diseases like AIDS that with the proper medication are manageable, but the very thing that is stopping them from surviving is one thing, they simply cannot afford the medical treatments that are necessary. How can we put a price on human life like that? How can we sit by and bicker amongst ourselves about who is the most pious, which religion is right and fight over a piece of land that is worthless when people are suffering like this?

We are here, the privileged few, living in absolute luxury compared to people in third world countries, yet we dare to complain and fight amongst ourselves. How can we sit here and call ourselves pious when at the same time we let people suffer like this? I can assure you that none of the respective prophets, whether it is Abraham, Moses, Jesus or Muhammad (peace be upon them all), will consider us as their people while we sit by and allow such injustices to occur. It is our obligation as God fearing people to actually work towards making a real difference in peoples' lives. We also need to work together and build a moral economic system that doesn't oppress other people like western capitalism. If we work together doing this for the sake of God, it will firmly build our bonds with each other, something which we so desperately need.

I became a Muslim, I wasn't raised one and one of the defining moments that caused me to accept Islam at the age of 16 was when I read a verse from the Qur'an. This verse is suitably found in Chapter four, titled An-Nisa or 'The Women':

In verse 135 God says:

O ye who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.

I would also like to say that every time I hear Manny speak about his experiences in the Israeli Army, it hurts me deeply inside. Knowing that he joined the very organisation that oppresses people in Palestine is extremely offensive to me. On top of that when Manny voices his opinion about these issues it hurts me further to see such a close minded view. However, it was these very experiences in the Israeli Army, witnessing the things that he did that has brought him here today in search creating proper dialogue between the faiths. Ten years ago Manny may not have ever come to an interfaith event. This friends, is precisely the reason why we need patience with each other. You see peoples' values and opinions change throughout their lives and are based on these experiences, therefore I congratulate Manny for being here, and I will do my utmost to be patient and work my hardest with him so that we can both work towards creating proper cohesion in the community that may, God willing create proper social justice on this earth, in a way that will mirror the time when Jews, Christians and Muslims lived and worked together in Spain and made contributions to mankind that we are still seeing today.

Thank you

[jeffrey smith]

Michael--

So you don't think it is a well known fact that Hamas's stated purpose (formalized in their charter) is the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, and that they adhere to the maximalist rejectionist attitude?

I think it is well known enough that I don't have to provide "evidence" of it. No one disputes it, not even Hamas.

I've referred before the peace talks which preceded the Intifada, in which Barak made what he felt was a very substantial offer on behalf of Israel. Adonis does not think it was a very substantial offer, and he may be right. But the important thing that proves that the Palestinians were not interested in living in peace with Israel was the fact that they made no counteroffer--they had no plan to suggest, nothing to put on the table as an counter to Barak's offer. That again is public knowledge that no one denies.

And then I see Adonis trying to excuse Hamas' actions and that of the Palestinians, without any apparent idea that he's supporting thereby an agenda that is at best racist, and at worst genocidal, and speak up about the cognitive dissonance involves (to call it by the most amicable terms available)....

I see Adonis channelling Arab propaganda, and warn both him and the other readers here that it is a highly biased version that includes some non facts, that it can't be taken as the basis for any intelligent discussion, and you think I'm not being credible?!

And for everyone's information, I'm not a rabid Zionist. I'm a Jew who has a various times in his life been insulted and sometimes assaulted because he's a Jew, who has had doors metaphorically shut in his face because he's a Jew--here in the USA, the land of enlightenment and all that--who has family, friends, friends of family and family of friends that live in Israel under the threat of Hezbollah and Hamas and their plans for a Jew-free Palestine (not to mention Iran's ambitions for a bomb with which it's publicly threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth). If you want to meet a rabid Zionist, go meet a religious settler in the West Bank.

Jeffrey Smith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So you don't think it is a well known fact that Hamas's stated purpose (formalized in their charter) is the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, and that they adhere to the maximalist rejectionist attitude?

I think it is well known enough that I don't have to provide "evidence" of it. No one disputes it, not even Hamas.

Jeff,

If that were the only point you have been raising, I would not have made the source objection. But that has not been the only point you have been raising.

And, as to my own practice, as evidenced here on the thread by things like citing a UN Act, different essays, a website devoted to the Nazi legacy in hardcore Islamist culture, etc., I vastly prefer to cite sources and quote the pertinent parts.

Even as regards your objection, it makes sense to do that. Citing the words of the Hamas Charter with a link to it has a great deal more impact on independent readers than opining and claiming common knowledge.

It also makes discussions vastly more objective.

As to the other things your wrote about just now, I merely skimmed your post. Frankly, I prefer to consult Dershowitz. I read what he writes about this issue. I skim what you do.

He provides sources. You can't be bothered.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I really do agree with Yoav Shamir in terms of his observations about a lot of Jews making their identity one of being persecuted.

Adonis,

This is a sword that cuts on both sides. I have seen many Palestinians do this, too.

There is a common perception among the more hardline Israel supporters that the surrounding Muslim countries do not offer the Palestinians support, and actively do not want Palestinians to develop, because they are useful to hold up as victims to the world in their Anti-Israel crusade. The worse off the Palestinians, the better they like it.

While I believe this of the more fanatical factions, I do not believe this is true of most Muslims.

The important point for Palestinians (and Israelis, for that matter) is to separate out true persecution from a victim mentality. I know that, as an outside observer, I get awfully tired of the yelling and fighting. I would even love to visit a place like Jerusalem because of its importance in mankind's history, but when I see all this stuff, I want to stay far, far away. I look on Jerusalem as the anus of the earth. Everything bad happens there and has for centuries. I know of no other place on earth where hatred and spite are practiced so devoutly in the name of God (Jehovah and Allah).

Back to victimhood, I, for one, do not feel much sympathy for a "victim" who launches bombs on civilians, or otherwise attacks the innocent, and I am loathe to recognize such a person as a victim or as an innocent. Frankly, I want such a person shut down so he will harm the innocent no more.

And when I look at the blatant racism on many broadcasts on Palestinian TV, I am loathe to call the people who produce and watch that stuff victims. I just don't feel sympathy for racists. (That goes for the fundamentalist faction of the Zionists, too.)

I think a great starting point in any negotiation (although I recognize that this is only a pipe dream) would be for both Israelis and Palestinians to leave the victim mentality at the door when they sit down at the table to talk.

btw - That was a very reasonable speech you posted except for the introductory part about the British and American governments committing genocide. That sounds a lot like victim mentality to me. But before I judge, what is your source for that? And where are the killing fields and mass graves?

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Michael--

So you don't think it is a well known fact that Hamas's stated purpose (formalized in their charter) is the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, and that they adhere to the maximalist rejectionist attitude?

I think it is well known enough that I don't have to provide "evidence" of it. No one disputes it, not even Hamas.

I've referred before the peace talks which preceded the Intifada, in which Barak made what he felt was a very substantial offer on behalf of Israel. Adonis does not think it was a very substantial offer, and he may be right. But the important thing that proves that the Palestinians were not interested in living in peace with Israel was the fact that they made no counteroffer--they had no plan to suggest, nothing to put on the table as an counter to Barak's offer. That again is public knowledge that no one denies.

And then I see Adonis trying to excuse Hamas' actions and that of the Palestinians, without any apparent idea that he's supporting thereby an agenda that is at best racist, and at worst genocidal, and speak up about the cognitive dissonance involves (to call it by the most amicable terms available)....

I see Adonis channelling Arab propaganda, and warn both him and the other readers here that it is a highly biased version that includes some non facts, that it can't be taken as the basis for any intelligent discussion, and you think I'm not being credible?!

And for everyone's information, I'm not a rabid Zionist. I'm a Jew who has a various times in his life been insulted and sometimes assaulted because he's a Jew, who has had doors metaphorically shut in his face because he's a Jew--here in the USA, the land of enlightenment and all that--who has family, friends, friends of family and family of friends that live in Israel under the threat of Hezbollah and Hamas and their plans for a Jew-free Palestine (not to mention Iran's ambitions for a bomb with which it's publicly threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth). If you want to meet a rabid Zionist, go meet a religious settler in the West Bank.

Jeffrey Smith

See that's the difference that people don't fully understand..

Yes, Hamas have that in their charter because Israel is a military occupation of Palestine.. However, they have offered a two state solution as meeting the Israelis half way to finally resolve the issue.

If of course the Palestinians are forced to continue fighting as is the current situation then they'll fight to get every inch of land back but if the Israelis are willing to negotiate and have a proper peace agreement that is fair and just, then war can be avoided and peace can ensue..

What more can the Palestinians do?

Also, Iran's president didn't threaten to wipe Israel off the face of the earth nor the map, there's no such phrase in Farsi.. He said that like the Soviet Union, Israel will disappear from the pages of time due to their internal policies, they have however threatened an overwhelming military response if Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities.. Which they have the right to do..

[Selene]

Ahh...

Now there is that pesky time worn question...

"Which they have the right to do."

A country that, as far as I know, does not recognize "rights" has the power to react.

However, do they have the moral right?

Adam

[Libertarian Muslim]

Ahh...

Now there is that pesky time worn question...

"Which they have the right to do."

A country that, as far as I know, does not recognize "rights" has the power to react.

However, do they have the moral right?

Adam

Did the US have a moral right to react against the Japanese military after imprisoning more than a hundred thousand US citizens of Japanese background into forced labor camps and thus denying them their rights?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Morality goes out the window when war happens.

There is a good saying for this in Objectivism. It is from Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand:

Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins.

Michael

[Selene]

Ahh...

Now there is that pesky time worn question...

"Which they have the right to do."

A country that, as far as I know, does not recognize "rights" has the power to react.

However, do they have the moral right?

Adam

Did the US have a moral right to react against the Japanese military after imprisoning more than a hundred thousand US citizens of Japanese background into forced labor camps and thus denying them their rights?

Adonis:

Good argument. Possibly would be my answer. The US, which is the fairest country to ever exist on the face of the Earth had its own Supreme Court rule against what the government did with the Japanese. By the way, they also placed German Americans and Italian Americans in internment camps and confiscated their properties.

However, I just ran across this ....

"A Demonstrator dressed as a figure of the movie 'Avatar', shouts slogans...

JERUSALEM (AP) - Palestinian protesters have added a colorful twist to demonstrations against Israel's separation barrier, painting themselves blue and posing as characters from the hit film "Avatar." The demonstrators also donned long hair and loincloths Friday for the weekly protest against the barrier near the village of Bilin.

They equated their struggle to the intergalactic one portrayed in the film.

Israel says the barrier is needed for its security. Palestinians consider it a land grab.

The protests have become a symbol of opposition. They often end in clashes with Israeli security forces involving stones and tear gas.

The "Avatar" protest comes a day after the Israeli government began rerouting the enclosure to eat up less of the Palestinian village."

Now that is classy. Street theatre works well to spread propaganda [using the word in its neutral meaning]. The Chinese group has always caught my attention and I always go over to see how I can help.

Street theatre was used efficiently in the Vietnam War also.

Adam

[Libertarian Muslim]

There is a common perception among the more hardline Israel supporters that the surrounding Muslim countries do not offer the Palestinians support, and actively do not want Palestinians to develop, because they are useful to hold up as victims to the world in their Anti-Israel crusade. The worse off the Palestinians, the better they like it.

This is a very complex situation.

The Palestinians living in other Arab countries surrounding them are in fact refugees, refugees in any country are only given limited rights to work and live and most decide to become citizens if such countries allow them to. However, the Palestinians don't want to become citizens of other countries though, they want to go back to their own country that they were forced out of in 1948 and 1967 due to war, much of the reasons why they fled was due to fears of massacres by Zionist fanatics, when news spread that this happened and the fanatics said they'd carry out more the people fled for their lives.. This was a part of the Zionist plan from the beginning because they believed that they couldn't keep a secure Israel if the Jewish population was only at 60%. Then when the Palestinians fled for their lives and the Israelis didn't let them back in, the Israelis enacted absentee property owners acts which allowed them to take all of the land of the Palestinians that had fled..

The question regarding support is also interesting, Palestinians in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria have limited support by the UN, neither Syria, Jordan nor Lebanon can afford to pay for everything, especially Syria because they now have a few million Iraqis living there in their cities.. These aren't rich countries at all. Palestinians in other countries in the Mid East however do provide immense support to Palestinian refugees including free scholarships etc, I met many Palestinian refugees in Qatar studying with me in university whilst I was there.

But the issue of support has another side, the reason why Palestinians aren't given more support than they already are is because many Zionists already claim that simply because Jordan is now 60% Palestinian, that the Palestinian state should be in Jordan instead of Palestine.. So the more support that the Palestinians get and the Zionists see, the more excuses they use to say, well let them have a state in those lands.

Others also claim that the 'Arabs' have so much land in the Middle East and the Jews had no country of their own there, so why not give a portion of it to the Jews to create their own state in lands which were due to be made a Palestinian State according to the British Mandate for Palestine as if that's some kind of legitimate excuse to force people from their lands, steal it and then create a state in them.

This is why I don't get it when some Libertarians state that there was a right to create Israel under these circumstances.. How is that just at all?

Do we then also believe that simply because someone has worked hard and earned a lot of money, that simply because they have a lot of money and I do not, that I should have a RIGHT to that person's wealth? No.. If it's not voluntarily given then you have no right to take it, if the Palestinians didn't voluntarily come to an agreement with the Zionists to give up on the mandate give the land over to create a state for Israel then there was no right to create it no matter what the UN or other governments said.. It broke a previous treaty.

If you want to punish someone for Holocaust, punish the Europeans, British and Americans who provided immense support for the Nazis and cut a piece of land from Europe, Britain or the US to create a Jewish state in, otherwise leave it as a Palestinian state which was supposed to occur, that was the mandate and the legality of it.

Back to victimhood, I, for one, do not feel much sympathy for a "victim" who launches bombs on civilians, or otherwise attacks the innocent, and I am loathe to recognize such a person as a victim or as an innocent. Frankly, I want such a person shut down so he will harm the innocent no more.

Then you must also be against sanctions like those that were put on Iraq from 1991-2003 that killed more than 1.5 million Iraqis, more than 500,000 of which were children under the age of 5.

Sanctions are just as deadly, if not more than war..

The difference was that Hamas' attacks on Israeli cities were due to their lack of guided weapons and their understanding that Israelis will go into their bomb shelters, meaning that civilians would stay off of the streets.. They did this to bring them to the negotiating table because they refused to negotiate a new fair ceasefire..

btw - That was a very reasonable speech you posted except for the introductory part about the British and American governments committing genocide. That sounds a lot like victim mentality to me. But before I judge, what is your source for that? And where are the killing fields and mass graves?

I said the British and Australian governments who massacred much of the indigenous population of Australia and didn't even consider them human beings until 1965 and even after that took their children away from them and forced them into Christian Anglo homes to become 'civilized'.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Good argument. Possibly would be my answer. The US, which is the fairest country to ever exist on the face of the Earth had its own Supreme Court rule against what the government did with the Japanese. By the way, they also placed German Americans and Italian Americans in internment camps and confiscated their properties.

I'm asking for equal standards here, what's good for the US is good for the Iranians too.. Unless someone wants to say that Iranians are not as equal to Americans in rights? Which I don't think you're saying.

So, was it okay for the US government to fight against the Japanese whilst they were infringing on the rights of their own citizens by putting them in concentration camps where they were forced to do labor without pay? Yes or no please..

Israel says the barrier is needed for its security. Palestinians consider it a land grab.

If it was needed for security then the Israelis could build the wall in their own territories and not the Palestinian ones rather than using that wall to take whole pieces of farming lands from Palestinians and using them to cut Palestinian towns off from each other and compartmentalize them, it's so the Israelis can claim that land for themselves in the future.. Most definitely a land grab.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Then you must also be against sanctions like those that were put on Iraq from 1991-2003 that killed more than 1.5 million Iraqis, more than 500,000 of which were children under the age of 5.

Sanctions are just as deadly, if not more than war..

Adonis,

You will not find much sympathy for that view on any Objectivist site. True wealth is created, not given in charity or plundered from others. As far as I know, the Iraqis were left free to create their own wealth, grow their own food, etc., within Iraq, despite the sanctions. That, in fact, is what all the major countries have done throughout all of human history.

The Iraqis couldn't?

And you look to outside the country for the reason for that?

What did they do with all that oil money?

You can't possibly mean you want the rest of the world to feed Iraq. Who is supposed to feed the rest of the world?

If you want to see two of the worst countries in dire straights, ever, look at Germany and Japan at the end of WWII. West Germany and Japan decided to produce and cut the crap. Now look at them. I don't think either would have any problem today--other than at a nuisance-level--if they were on the receiving end of sanctions.

As for other countries who played at being the backyard of dictators... well... look at them.

Sanctions aren't deadly. Saddam Hussein and his cohorts were deadly. Sanctions only made that reality crystal clear.

Speaking of producing, my ex-father-in-law in Brazil was Bedouin. He did not like Jews, but he still used to say that Israel made a garden in the desert. The way he put it (and he said this often for some reason), if two Israelis come across a boulder in the road, they will move it and plant a garden alongside the road. If two Arabs come across the same boulder, they jump up on top of it, take a crap, then move on thinking they were funny.

If you really want to help Palestine, help teach the Palestinians to produce. They are good people. I have known several in Brazil. And once they "get it," they do really good work.

Frankly, they deserve far better than Hamas, which doesn't give two hoots for production.

I said the British and Australian governments who massacred much of the indigenous population of Australia and didn't even consider them human beings until 1965 and even after that took their children away from them and forced them into Christian Anglo homes to become 'civilized'.

Oops.

Sorry.

As an aside, the USA actually did that with some American Indian tribes in the 1800's. Not our finest moments...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adonis,

I want to make a footnote to my previous post. Let me put it in your language, not mine.

Allah gave the earth to man to create his own wealth.

Look at what some of these dictators are doing with Allan's gift! They make a mockery of it to serve their own vanity! And look at how they are tolerated by other Islamic people!

If nothing else changes, that has to change.

Michael

[jeffrey smith]

See that's the difference that people don't fully understand..

Yes, Hamas have that in their charter because Israel is a military occupation of Palestine.. However, they have offered a two state solution as meeting the Israelis half way to finally resolve the issue.

First off, let me note that your phrase "military occupation" is, to put it mildy, a fantasy. But that's something for another post (literally--I intend to reply to another of your posts after I finish this one). Where in fact has Hamas offered a two state solution (meaning without evasion offered to recognize Israel as a Jewish state coexisting peacefully with a Palestinian state, which is how most people think of a "two state solution")? I know of no such offer, or anything remotely like it, beyond offers of a "truce", meaning no fighting but no recognition and no giving up of the overall ambition to have an Islamic Palestine. Can you point me to such an offer.

Here's what the Hamas Charter says.

http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html

Article Eleven: The Strategy of Hamas: Palestine is an Islamic Waqf

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have that right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection. Who can presume to speak for all Islamic Generations to the Day of Resurrection? This is the status [of the land] in Islamic Shari’a, and it is similar to all lands conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. This [norm] has prevailed since the commanders of the Muslim armies completed the conquest of Syria and Iraq, and they asked the Caliph of Muslims, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, for his view of the conquered land, whether it should be partitioned between the troops or left in the possession of its population, or otherwise. Following discussions and consultations between the Caliph of Islam, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, be peace and prayer upon him, they decided that the land should remain in the hands of its owners to benefit from it and from its wealth; but the control of the land and the land itself ought to be endowed as a Waqf [in perpetuity] for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. The ownership of the land by its owners is only one of usufruct, and this Waqf will endure as long as Heaven and earth last. Any demarche in violation of this law of Islam, with regard to Palestine, is baseless and reflects on its perpetrators.

Article Twelve: Hamas in Palestine, Its Views on Homeland and Nationalism

Hamas regards Nationalism (Wataniyya) as part and parcel of the religious faith. Nothing is loftier or deeper in Nationalism than waging Jihad against the enemy and confronting him when he sets foot on the land of the Muslims. And this becomes an individual duty binding on every Muslim man and woman; a woman must go out and fight the enemy even without her husband’s authorization, and a slave without his masters’ permission. This [principle] does not exist under any other regime, and it is a truth not to be questioned. While other nationalisms consist of material, human and territorial considerations, the nationality of Hamas also carries, in addition to all those, the all important divine factors which lend to it its spirit and life; so much so that it connects with the origin of the spirit and the source of life and raises in the skies of the Homeland the Banner of the Lord, thus inexorably connecting earth with Heaven. When Moses came and threw his baton, sorcery and sorcerers became futile.

Article Thirteen: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences

[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: “Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware.” From time to time a clamoring is voiced, to hold an International Conference in search for a solution to the problem. Some accept the idea, others reject it, for one reason or another, demanding the implementation of this or that condition, as a prerequisite for agreeing to convene the Conference or for participating in it. But the Islamic Resistance Movement, which is aware of the [prospective] parties to this conference, and of their past and present positions towards the problems of the Muslims, does not believe that those conferences are capable of responding to demands, or of restoring rights or doing justice to the oppressed. Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the nonbelievers as arbitrators in the lands of Islam. Since when did the Unbelievers do justice to the Believers? “And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed. Say: Lo! the guidance of Allah [himself] is the Guidance. And if you should follow their desires after the knowledge which has come unto thee, then you would have from Allah no protecting friend nor helper.” Sura 2 (the Cow), verse 120 There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game. As the hadith has it: “The people of Syria are Allah’s whip on this land; He takes revenge by their intermediary from whoever he wished among his worshipers. The Hypocrites among them are forbidden from vanquishing the true believers, and they will die in anxiety and sorrow.” (Told by Tabarani, who is traceable in ascending order of traditionaries to Muhammad, and by Ahmed whose chain of transmission is incomplete. But it is bound to be a true hadith, for both story tellers are reliable. Allah knows best.)

Article Fourteen: The Three Circles

The problem of the liberation of Palestine relates to three circles: the Palestinian, the Arab and the Islamic. Each one of these circles has a role to play in the struggle against Zionism and it has duties to fulfill. It would be an enormous mistake and an abysmal act of ignorance to disregard anyone of these circles. For Palestine is an Islamic land where the First Qibla and the third holiest site are located. That is also the place whence the Prophet, be Allah’s prayer and peace upon him, ascended to heavens. “Glorified be He who carried His servant by night from the Inviolable Place of worship to the Far Distant Place of Worship, the neighborhood whereof we have blessed, that we might show him of our tokens! Lo! He, only He, is the Hearer, the Seer.” Sura XVII (al-Isra’), verse 1 In consequence of this state of affairs, the liberation of that land is an individual duty binding on all Muslims everywhere. This is the base on which all Muslims have to regard the problem; this has to be understood by all Muslims. When the problem is dealt with on this basis, where the full potential of the three circles is mobilized, then the current circumstances will change and the day of liberation will come closer. “You are more awful as a fear in their bosoms than Allah. That is because they are a folk who understand not.” Sura LIX, (Al-Hashr, the Exile), verse 13.

Not much room for negotiating or otherwise arriving at a two state solution there, is there? Not much room for anything other than a shariah ruled Islamic state, actually.

That comes several paragraphs after this lovely little quotation of a Hadith:

Hamas is one of the links in the Chain of Jihad in the confrontation with the Zionist invasion. It links up with the setting out of the Martyr Izz a-din al-Qassam and his brothers in the Muslim Brotherhood who fought the Holy War in 1936; it further relates to another link of the Palestinian Jihad and the Jihad and efforts of the Muslim Brothers during the 1948 War, and to the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brothers in 1968 and thereafter. But even if the links have become distant from each other, and even if the obstacles erected by those who revolve in the Zionist orbit, aiming at obstructing the road before the Jihad fighters, have rendered the pursuance of Jihad impossible; nevertheless, the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).

And see in Article 17 a claim that Freemasonry and Rotary Clubs are Zionist organizations.

"The Holy War of 1936" is more usually called the Arab Revolt of 1936-39--here is Wikipedia's article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine

And here's a shorter description from an organization called Palestine Facts

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_riots_1936-39.php

Reading some of the other pages, Palestine Facts seems to be decidedly pro-Israel.

Which is why, Adonis, you should read it. Perhaps it will make you aware of some things your Muslim brothers don't mention in their narratives.

If of course the Palestinians are forced to continue fighting as is the current situation then they'll fight to get every inch of land back but if the Israelis are willing to negotiate and have a proper peace agreement that is fair and just, then war can be avoided and peace can ensue..

What more can the Palestinians do?

Well, stopping the use of suicide bombers and Qassam rockets, would be a start.

Now, please tell me, with whom are the Israelis supposed to negotiate? The Palestinian Authority seems to lack either the capacity or the desire to do so on behalf of all Palestinians. Who is going to bring the extreme rejectionists like Hamas to heel? I see no sign of anyone inside Palestinian society even attempting to do so.

And, for my own information, what exactly do you personally consider a proper fair and just peace agreement? You seem to indicate that you think the only proper, fair and just result would be a unified state in which Jews and Palestinians live side by side. I hate to tell you this, but the Israelis are not going to accept, for the simple reason that they don't trust the Palestinians to keep the peace once the state is established. Palestinians have been resorting to communal violence since the 1920s--the 1936-39 revolt was simply the most serious and longest lasting of those episodes. And Palestinian statements from non-PA sources don't exactly refute that notion.

Also, Iran's president didn't threaten to wipe Israel off the face of the earth nor the map, there's no such phrase in Farsi.. He said that like the Soviet Union, Israel will disappear from the pages of time due to their internal policies, they have however threatened an overwhelming military response if Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities.. Which they have the right to do..

I wasn't referring to his statement, but others statements by members of the mullahcracy over the years. The real question is not whether Iran, the main backer of Hezbollah, has threatened Israel, but whether if it obtains nuclear weapons it will actually carry through on those threats.

Jeffrey S.

[Libertarian Muslim]

You will not find much sympathy for that view on any Objectivist site. True wealth is created, not given in charity or plundered from others. As far as I know, the Iraqis were left free to create their own wealth, grow their own food, etc., within Iraq, despite the sanctions. That, in fact, is what all the major countries have done throughout all of human history.

The Iraqis couldn't?

And you look to outside the country for the reason for that?

What did they do with all that oil money?

You can't possibly mean you want the rest of the world to feed Iraq. Who is supposed to feed the rest of the world?

If you want to see two of the worst countries in dire straights, ever, look at Germany and Japan at the end of WWII. West Germany and Japan decided to produce and cut the crap. Now look at them. I don't think either would have any problem today--other than at a nuisance-level--if they were on the receiving end of sanctions.

As for other countries who played at being the backyard of dictators... well... look at them.

Sanctions aren't deadly. Saddam Hussein and his cohorts were deadly. Sanctions only made that reality crystal clear.

Are you serious? First of all, Iraq, prior to the first Gulf War had the best healthcare and education standards in the whole Middle East..

But let's not forget that the US government imposes the dictator Saddam Hussein on the Iraqis by funding him, training him and his secret police, giving him weapons of mass destruction to use against Iran and the Kurds and then gave him approval to invade Kuwait and then said that he did the wrong thing and that he should leave Kuwait.. Then when he didn't the US used depleted uranium weapons the Iraqis and destroyed the infrastructure of Iraq, then to top it off they imposed a 10 year block of crippling sanctions on the Iraqis that killed more than a million Iraqis while the government lives in luxury still?

How about the US take some damned responsibility for its actions there.. The US created the Monster and entire infrastructure that was Saddams regime, how on earth could the people fight against that?

They tried and the vast majority of people lived under oppression under his rule and couldn't do anything about it..

In fact when they, at the encouragement of George Bush Snr who promised support for them they rose up during the Gulf War against Saddam and took Iraqs second largest city Basra, did the US come through with support? NO.. They allowed Saddam's forces to retake the city with their Gunships and Tanks and thousands and thousands were massacred while the US just sat by and did nothing..

What could they do?

Speaking of producing, my ex-father-in-law in Brazil was Bedouin. He did not like Jews, but he still used to say that Israel made a garden in the desert. The way he put it (and he said this often for some reason), if two Israelis come across a boulder in the road, they will move it and plant a garden alongside the road. If two Arabs come across the same boulder, they jump up on top of it, take a crap, then move on thinking they were funny.

Most Palestinians aren't Bedouins, the behavior you discussed is the type of thing a Bedouin would do but not an average Arab

If you really want to help Palestine, help teach the Palestinians to produce. They are good people. I have known several in Brazil. And once they "get it," they do really good work.

Frankly, they deserve far better than Hamas, which doesn't give two hoots for production.

That's not true, Hamas has helped the Palestinians do that through many grassroots programs, Israel has destroyed destruction with its blockade and wars on the Gazans

[Selene]

I do not believe they the Iranian government does not have any "rights" in relation to the US concerning this issue.

I do not think there is a word for "rights" in Farsi, but I would have to call my friend to be sure. I believe in another post you said:

Also, Iran's president didn't threaten to wipe Israel off the face of the earth nor the map, there's no such phrase in Farsi.

Therefore, I would not grant an outlaw state the same "rights" as a non outlaw state.

"I'm asking for equal standards here, what's good for the US is good for the Iranians too.. Unless someone wants to say that Iranians are not as equal to Americans in rights? Which I don't think you're saying."

An argument can be made that that would deprive the individual Iranian of their right to self defense and that would be a problem for any civilian and citizen living in an outlaw state.

And no, I do not think it is sustainable that the United States is either imperialist, an outlaw or evil.

Adam