If this discussion gets any more heated I reckon Fearless may make an appearance.
Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
When one of you have a second, can one of you explain to me the meaning of this:
http://islamicrenaissance.co.uk/the-remorse-i-felt-after-ariel-sharons-death/
Someone I went to school with is always posting stuff like this, and I can't say I ever really understand it. He's saying someone should have killed him, right?
The greatest pharaoh of our time is dead! Let’s celebrate! No, that’s not exactly how I felt when I heard the news of his death. I felt remorse.
You see, I remember the face of Ariel Sharon from when I was 10 years old, when I received my first flyer that woke me up to the plight of our Ummah – when I first saw the vicious images of the crimes that he had committed in Sabra and Shatila.
But I felt remorse – not because an oppressor had just died, but because of the reaction that followed his death. Just as I write, I have seen many updates from Muslims that are expressing relief at the news of his death; they are proudly speaking of the punishment he received during his eight-year coma, and speculating the punishment that waits him in hell.
Great! Natural justice has been served! I guess it makes us all feel a little better, knowing the world has been ridden of another evil pharaoh, but is there more to our reaction? Is this enough to explain our relief?
Maybe underneath the sighs of our relief, underneath the feelings of gratitude, lies a guilty conscience. A guilty conscience burdened with years of inaction. Maybe we felt relief not because the world had been ridden of evil, but because we were ridden of some guilt, because our burden of inaction became that much easier to carry.
And that’s what fills me with feelings of remorse. Our relief helps us to justify our inaction. But for how long will we justify our inaction? Whilst we are singing the hymns of hell for Ariel Sharon, what we have forgotten is that we are as guilty as him. Natural justice has sent him to where he belongs, but we are on the road to the same place.
And no, I’m not being hysterical, I am simply making you aware of what our Prophet (PBUH) said so eloquently: “Verily, if the people see an oppressor and they do not seize his hand, then Allah will soon send punishment upon all of them”.
And I’m afraid. I’m afraid that in the midst of celebrating the punishment that awaits Ariel Sharon, we are ignoring the punishment that awaits us. I’m afraid that the sighs of our relief will justify our inaction to us, but won’t justify our inaction to our creator. I’m afraid that we are headed towards the same fate as the greatest oppressor of our time.
You see, I remember the face of Ariel Sharon from when I was 10 years old, when I received my first flyer that woke me up to the plight of our Ummah – when I first saw the vicious images of the crimes that he had committed in Sabra and Shatila.
But I felt remorse – not because an oppressor had just died, but because of the reaction that followed his death. Just as I write, I have seen many updates from Muslims that are expressing relief at the news of his death; they are proudly speaking of the punishment he received during his eight-year coma, and speculating the punishment that waits him in hell.
Great! Natural justice has been served! I guess it makes us all feel a little better, knowing the world has been ridden of another evil pharaoh, but is there more to our reaction? Is this enough to explain our relief?
Maybe underneath the sighs of our relief, underneath the feelings of gratitude, lies a guilty conscience. A guilty conscience burdened with years of inaction. Maybe we felt relief not because the world had been ridden of evil, but because we were ridden of some guilt, because our burden of inaction became that much easier to carry.
And that’s what fills me with feelings of remorse. Our relief helps us to justify our inaction. But for how long will we justify our inaction? Whilst we are singing the hymns of hell for Ariel Sharon, what we have forgotten is that we are as guilty as him. Natural justice has sent him to where he belongs, but we are on the road to the same place.
And no, I’m not being hysterical, I am simply making you aware of what our Prophet (PBUH) said so eloquently: “Verily, if the people see an oppressor and they do not seize his hand, then Allah will soon send punishment upon all of them”.
And I’m afraid. I’m afraid that in the midst of celebrating the punishment that awaits Ariel Sharon, we are ignoring the punishment that awaits us. I’m afraid that the sighs of our relief will justify our inaction to us, but won’t justify our inaction to our creator. I’m afraid that we are headed towards the same fate as the greatest oppressor of our time.
Someone I went to school with is always posting stuff like this, and I can't say I ever really understand it. He's saying someone should have killed him, right?
You laugh, but I genuinely don't know. He's a very peaceful person, except every now and again he posts something on facebook which is a bit different. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that Ariel Sharon brings out a fair bit more emotion.
Sorry, couldn't help it.
I can see why Sharon wasn't the Umma's favourite, but most of its e-authors get their message pretty clear with one-liners.
I can see why Sharon wasn't the Umma's favourite, but most of its e-authors get their message pretty clear with one-liners.
Since you're so good with maps lets add one of the territory allocated to the Brits by the League of Nations in order to help build a homeland for the Jewish people. I think the Arabs got a pretty nice chunk of that.
The Palestine Mandate
The Council of the League of Nations:
ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
I challenged previous posters who posted your set to provide legal backing for the one on the left, but I guess that's not easily painted green or white...My guess is that the left one is a default map. White is Jewish privately-owned land, while the rest belongs to something that never existed, i.e. "Palestinian land".
Move to B and guess what...? The arabs didn't accept that plan and started a war of annihilation against the Jews. Move to C and read B again. Read D and listen to Hellboy...they still do...Black Knight syndrome?
On the other hand, the fact you find yourself throwing jpegs after what seemed to be a reasonable discussion suggests you've fitted in here nicely. Welcome! Just a quick update, we've done the history part numerous times here, and you could browse for a brief overview. Much more interesting for me is an attempt to move forward. Is there a solution? What that would be, etc.
The Palestine Mandate
The Council of the League of Nations:
ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
I challenged previous posters who posted your set to provide legal backing for the one on the left, but I guess that's not easily painted green or white...My guess is that the left one is a default map. White is Jewish privately-owned land, while the rest belongs to something that never existed, i.e. "Palestinian land".
Move to B and guess what...? The arabs didn't accept that plan and started a war of annihilation against the Jews. Move to C and read B again. Read D and listen to Hellboy...they still do...Black Knight syndrome?
On the other hand, the fact you find yourself throwing jpegs after what seemed to be a reasonable discussion suggests you've fitted in here nicely. Welcome! Just a quick update, we've done the history part numerous times here, and you could browse for a brief overview. Much more interesting for me is an attempt to move forward. Is there a solution? What that would be, etc.
Since you're so good with maps lets add one of the territory allocated to the Brits by the League of Nations in order to help build a homeland for the Jewish people. I think the Arabs got a pretty nice chunk of that.
The Palestine Mandate
The Council of the League of Nations:
ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
I challenged previous posters who posted your set to provide legal backing for the one on the left, but I guess that's not easily painted green or white...My guess is that the left one is a default map. White is Jewish privately-owned land, while the rest belongs to something that never existed, i.e. "Palestinian land".
Move to B and guess what...? The arabs didn't accept that plan and started a war of annihilation against the Jews. Move to C and read B again. Read D and listen to Hellboy...they still do...Black Knight syndrome?
On the other hand, the fact you find yourself throwing jpegs after what seemed to be a reasonable discussion suggests you've fitted in here nicely. Welcome! Just a quick update, we've done the history part numerous times here, and you could browse for a brief overview. Much more interesting for me is an attempt to move forward. Is there a solution? What that would be, etc.
How can their be a solution? The Palestinian state would be so small it wouldnt be viable. Without huge transfers of land back to the Arabs their is no two state solution. What has been lost by the Arab people is lost forever. So what the alternative?
Effectively their is a de facto single state. The only solution is either kick all the remaining Palestinians out(not one I support obviously) or a single state solution. Maybe its time for the Israel government to admit this is all they will accept(not the single state solution obviously).
To even suggest that their will be a Palestinian state at this stage is a bit laughable.
I reckon it would have been possible if that's what the Palestinians wanted. Unfortunately there is little indication for their acceptance of a Jewish state in the Middle East. Under these circumstances ANY Israeli policy could be interpreted as one of self-defense. As Many in Israel have claimed all along, the conflict was never about the borders but the actual existence of the State of Israel. The so-called 1967 "occupation" was merely an excuse.
BTW, what is Jordan if not a Palestinian state? It could become a part of an agreement if the will was there, in order to make an Arab territory more "viable". I guess you don't care whether pre-1967 (subject to land swaps) Israel in an ocean of hostility is "viable", but many here would have been willing to give it a try if they trusted the Arabs would have no further claims. Not only the trust isn't there, no Arab has even dared suggesting this.
I would be the first to admit that any Palestinian state formed would be viewed as a stepping stone by many Palestinians to totally control of the region. Anybody who thinks different is very naive. No matter what deal the Palestinians are offered it will only be accepted by the majority if they see it as a stepping stone to something better.
Depressing but true. I don't expect peace in our lifetime.
The palestinian state is a lie that only gives time to Israhell to colonize more. The only viable solution is one country where jews, muslims and christians live together.
Only a fecking idiot would miss the fact that construction in the WB would only lead to that one-state reality, but then again...
Aren't you one of the chosen people ? De facto more intelligent than a goy, it is written in your talmud.
Don't know about the talmud, but books about recent ME history provides supporting evidence for that general claim at the regional level.
Israel will have no choice but to abandon its racist constitution at some stage. Every year that passes it becomes less and less palatable. Given the historical context, a 'Jewish state' may have been appropriate in 1948, but not today. A nation state defining itself on racial lines - which involves elevating one race over another - is obviously out of tune with the rest of the world's understanding of modern democracy. Outrageously so, in fact. That doesn't mean Israel cannot exist, it just means that it will have to exist as a state for its citizens rather than for its Jewish citizens. But that doesn't mean it can't maintain its attachment to Jewish heritage as its own heritage. It can, and this would be much easier under a two state solution.
Obviously you're being facetious, but nobody who believes that he is a divinely 'chosen person' is an intelligent person, by the way. At least not in the absence of insanity.
Well, you'd have to be religious if you were to believe in a divinely "chosen people". I'm secular.
You'd have to be a certain kind of religious, too. The concept of an exclusive chosen people, as determined by God, is immensely arrogant and delusional.
Does anybody in mainstream Israeli politics openly admit to subscribing to it in a modern context? I get the impression that many do?
Is that true though? What were the criteria for taking apart the former Yugoslavia? What was the "rest of the world's understanding" about how it should be done? What was the deal with Czechoslovakia? Former Soviet Union? Sudan? The idealistic idea of multicultural states has far from enjoyed universal success. It may have worked in some places (US, Australia), but cannot come at the expense of stability and there's little evidence to suggest it could work in the Middle East.
Are you seriously suggesting that a more "palatable" idea than a Jewish homeland is that Jews would live under Islamic rule? I mean, you don't have to dig too deep to find ample examples of Muslim tolerance of minorities, which is what Jews would be in that scenario you're suggesting. The world lives happily with a bunch of states around us that define themselves on racial/religious lines. In fact, it is busy helping creating another one. How is that more palatable than a Jewish state?
You're not serious, are you?
On your first paragraph, I think a distinction should be made between a 'state for Jews' and a 'Jewish state'. Israel was created with Jews in mind and that is something that will never change. But where Israel differs from the examples you give is that it defines itself as a Jewish state (where a certain group receives privileged status over others) rather than just as a state that came into being as a state for Jews. If you look at the dismantling of Yugoslavia, the successor states were never meant to be constitutionally geared towards any particular ethnic groups in terms of people's rights. In fact, I'm not aware of any country in the world apart from Israel where a single group is given special constitutional rights on the grounds of race. Modern states have been formed on the basis of a particular ethnic group needing independence, but they don't base themselves on the constitutional superiority of that particular ethnic group.
On your second paragraph, of course I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that Israel continues to exist as a democratic sovereign state which can determine its own fate. But for it to be truly democratic, all of its citizens must be constitutionally equal. Demographics wouldn't have to change because I'm not suggesting that this would mean Israel incorporating the Palestinian Territories in a one state solution. It could exist alongside a Palestinian state as a secular state for Israelis, not Jews. The Jewish majority would ensure its cultural character remains the same. I don't know where this idea that Islamic rule would suddenly fall on Israel should it cease being a constitutionally Jewish state comes from.
The major constitutional difference granting Jews special priviliges is the "law of return" which basically follows the very idea you calim was in mind when Israel was created- the one which allows all Jews refuge in their nation state. Obviously, in order to keep the nature of that state this cannot be granted to all its citizens or else Israel would cease to exist as a Jewish state. Does that disagree with how the rest of the world see modern democracy? perhaps, but considering the alternative we and the rest of the world will have to learn to live with it.
In practice, Israeli Arabs gain a lot more living in an island of stability in this ocean of violence that the Middle East is. Despite the inheret inequality which I can't deny in some national rights, they fare better than some minorities in Europe and far better than their compatriots across our borders. I'm sure they'd do even better if their representatives in parliament expressed a will to integrate in this country rather than undermine it. Mind boggling really, when you consider polls indicating that ~50% of Israeli Arabs are proud to be Israeli despite tensions between the two populations.
But the major problem for Israel is the time will come when that will be challenged by the Israel Arabs. Their acceptance of their current status wont last forever.
History always shows that people who are treated unequally will eventually seek equality.
History also tells that Jews should not put their security at the hands of others. I think we as a nation have earned the right to have a place that we can call home, and which would provide our fellow people refuge if/when they are persecuted in other countries. The ability of minorities to integrate should not come at the expense of that national "privilege".
Thankfully, Israeli Arabs have the means to seek equality in a democratic system. That is something unheard of in the Arab world. The thing is that they'll have to satisfy the overwhelming majority that they do not seek to undermine its collective national ethos. It's a delicate balance that represents the reality of life in Israel. It still speaks volumes that Israeli Arabs (who identify themselves as Palestinians) prefer to live in Israel than in a future independent Palestine.
agree hr.
Just out of curiousity and while it did happen a long time ago, what effect has the assination of Anwar Sadat had on the prospects for an eventual solution to this whole issue?
Absolutely no effect. Mubarak carried on from where Sa'adat left off regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict. The bilateral issues were pretty much sorted with Israel's withdrawal from Sinai.
Bit of an odd secularist if you use the Bible to justify a Jewish claim on Palestine.
But does it at all give other leaders in the region pause to wonder how far can they really go in negotiating with Israel without endangering their own life?
You'd be daft to think Jews need the bible for that. There is evidence for Jewish presence spanning millennia in every corner of this piece of land.
Odd is suggesting this historic land belongs to a people that never existed.
I'd say most of them have enough reasons to watch their backs even without negotiating with Israel.
Even odder given that there were hardly any Jews there by the end of the 19th century.
Centuries of persecutions and expulsions did take their toll. Thankfully, Zionism has gone a long way in making up for those.
so is john Kerry "acting out of an incomprehensible obsession and messianic fervour" and is it true that he "cannot teach me (Mr Yallon) anything about the conflict with the Palestinians.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25735532
It almost sounds like he does not want peace?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25735532
It almost sounds like he does not want peace?
Ah yes Zionism, prosecuting rights to a country where Jews represented a 3-4% share of the population for much of the preceding 350 years.
Mankind originated in East Africa. If human beings trace back their ancestry far enough, you could make the case that that's where we all originally came from.
Nobody tell the Israelis though, or else Tanzania's fecked.
Nobody tell the Israelis though, or else Tanzania's fecked.
Tell that to the Palestinians. Their "right of return" could well mean prosperity in Africa.
So 350 is the cutoff value after which a nation loses its right to rebuild? And why Arab immigration into the territory had any more justification that Jewish immigration in the wake of Zionism?
The remaining Jews you mention were largely populated in Jerusalem (where some claim they were a majority back in the mid 19th century) and in the Galillee. Not sure 3-4% is an accurate figure, but it is fair to say they were outnumbered by a largely nomad population. Those are the "indigenous" inhabitants often mentioned in debates, whose claim for the territory isn't any better than that of the Gypsys' in Europe. There was no country here, or national claims for the territory. The Arabs here did not identify themselves as a Palestinian people until after the district was allocated by the League of Nations to the only nation that ever had a self rule on that territory and had no other.
Nevertheless, isn't Zionism a modern miracle? In a period of several decades that 19th century shithole we're discussing evolved into a prosperous country offering vast opportunities to its citizens, and sharing its wealth of knowledge and innovation with both modern and developing countries?