PDA

View Full Version : Peace in Palestine?



Grace Seeker
09-03-2010, 04:05 AM
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas agree to deal within a year. It is assumed that any such deal would result in a two-state solution in which both a Palestinian state and Israel were seen as legitimate by each other, in addition a number of other very thorny and complicated issues would also have to be worked out.


If you would like to see this accomplished, what do you think it will take from each side to make this a reality?

If you are against it, what are your objections and why?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
IslamicRevival
09-13-2010, 04:37 AM
Would you like to see Abbas and Netanyahu come to agreement on a two-state solution?

Simple answer, NO. You cannot negotiate with mass murdering terrorist baby killers. I want peace but these Zionist pigs do not even know the meaning of the word. Even if a two state solution was agreed, does anyone believe the terrorist Israelis would all of a sudden stop killing innocent Palestinians? Terrorists will always be terrorists.

The biggest problem is the Israhellis are not negotiating with Hamas. the democratically elected government of Gaza.. Why do the US and Israhell continually ignore Hamas and exclude them from peace talks? Abbas and his party legally DO NOT have control over Gaza, hence he does not represent the Palestinians on the political stage, HAMAS DO! No chance of peace until Israhell and its masters America recognize Hamas and speak to them directly.

Its clear Abbas is a US puppet and an Israeli ally, and these so called peace talks are a big set up to fool the world. Its guaranteed the sham talks will end without an agreement and Israel will continue to build illegal settlements, bulldoze homes and kill innocent Palestinians.

The only viable solution is for the illegal immigrants to get the hell out of Palestine and immigrate to America. The better solution would be for the Israhelis to be sucked up by the ground, the world would be a better place without these dajjal followers
Reply

Maryan0
09-13-2010, 05:51 PM
There cant be peace when one group of people holds all the power. In that case it would be peace on the powerful groups terms. Palestinians dont have much to bargain with. These peace talks are shams and lead nowhere.
Salam
Reply

Zafran
09-13-2010, 06:42 PM
Salaam

This is the problem - a lot of people dont understand the palestine Isreal conflict - A good place to start is actually realising that Hamas is the democratically elected government not Mahmoud Abbas - if they cant get that right then do you think this a serious peace talk are a joke? Even if there is a peace deal it wouldnt mean a thing as Abbas isnt in power - Hamas is - what they need to do is start to talking to Hamas like the UK government did with the IRA.

peace
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
sister herb
09-13-2010, 06:52 PM
Mahmoud Abbas is no longer president of Palestine neither president of Palestinian Authority - his time as president has ended already. Legal president or deputy president is spokesman of Palestinian Legistative Council - Dr. Dweik - according by Palestinian Basic Law and Palestinian Election Law. Thats why he can´t represent Palestinians in any kind of negotiations. Dr. Dweik is member of Hamas and Hamas is not part of these kind of negotiations.

Hamas has told before they can agree about peace agreement for 1967 borders, but they too demand that Jerusalem will be capital of Palestine and they don´t give up some basic principles like right of return of Palestinian refugees. This kind of "negotiations" what zionists and Abbas and his "team" are keeping is mostly just waste of time - specially when zionists still continue stealing more Palestinian lands, building more housing units to settlements and new settlements, and violate rights of Palestinians by every possible ways.

Here are some articles about how possible is reach peace without accepting Hamas and its conditions to any kind of peace talks:

The Economist: No agreement without Hamas
http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/d...Gy61dFnrCWc%3d

Prominent rabbi tells Erdogan: There can be no peace without Hamas
http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/d...KIm1g4tZ9nw%3d
Reply

Dagless
09-14-2010, 12:00 AM
Netanyahu is only agreeing to talk because he has to. It's the only way to make the US and Israel appear sane. He is not really interested in any solution. Why should he be? The bulldozers continue to run despite what anyone says.
Reply

Woodrow
09-14-2010, 06:14 AM
For those of us living in the Western world it is difficult to understand why peace is so difficult to reach. From a logical view a 2 state existence is the better choice. But, while it is logical it does not mean it is feasible or justified. The reality is there are 2 distinct nations, each opposed to the others ideology, trying to occupy the same piece of real estate. We made a gigantic error in 1946-47 in thinking we could build a nation without destroying the occupants of the land. This is the result of our interference. We had absolutely no right to relocate people living in Europe, the USA and Russia into occupied land, inhabited by people who knew it as their only home.

How do we undo the damage we brought about, without causing even more harm?

While a 2 state nation is the most sensible solution. It will not result in peaceful coexistence. The simply fact is there will be no peace until it is all one people and one nation. For peace to come one nation has to leave the land. You can have either Palestine or Israel, but not both on the same land. We made a gross error and as a result the innocents of both Palestine and Israel are those who will suffer the most.

I guess we could take all of the Israelis and move them to New York City and evict the current New Yorkers to London on the basis that the original New Yorkers were British Colonists and by heritage have a birth right to the UK.

Us humans must be the most demanding and arrogant of all created life. We can not be moving people around like furniture during a house redecorating spree. I know we can not undo the errors of the past, but us in the USA and UK do have to carry a burden of guilt over the mess we made out of an innocent country and a group of displaced people in need of a home. Yes, we should have helped the Jews find a home after WW2, but we had no right to give them an occupied home that we did not own. The reality is if we wanted to give the Jews a homeland we should have given them something we actually owned and occupied legally. Today's world would look much different if we had given them Ireland or Pennsylvania. Oddly we could have legally done either, but we would have faced a very strong backlash. I wonder why we did not think we would get the same backlash from the Palestinians.

No, I do not have a workable solution. While I would like to see the peaceful existence in a 2 state compromise, I do not see that as workable or even fair.
Reply

Junon
09-14-2010, 02:58 PM
Salaam

Netanyahu is only agreeing to talk because he has to. It's the only way to make the US and Israel appear sane. He is not really interested in any solution. Why should he be? The bulldozers continue to run despite what anyone says.
Yes well said, I think the FT summarised the talks well



The Truth behind the “Peace Process”

A poisoned process holds little hope


http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/the...peace-process/

The show must go on

One final act in Middle East farce


http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/the-show-must-go-on/

For anybody whos interested in the history, there was never a 'peace process' in the first place, in fact the beginning of the Oslo process can be compared with the onset of Apartheid in South Africa.

Until the USA + Israel abandon their decades old rejectionist stance, blocking every conceivable way to solve the conflict, there is little hope for a just solution to ongoing misery of Palestinians.

Having said that when apartheid fell it was completely unexpected, so as long as we keep campaigning there is hope of a sort but nevertheless hope.
Reply

جوري
09-14-2010, 03:06 PM
I don't believe in a two state solution NO!
can I come and take over half your house take over by force, and then slime my way into the rest of it so you are sleeping in the garage if at all? How laughable!
Reply

titus
09-17-2010, 02:47 AM
A two state solution is almost impossible now. You have two states which teach their children to hate each other. Reason and common sense left this part of the world years ago to be replaced by blind hatred and disgust.

Maybe one day they will get smart, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
Reply

Zafran
09-17-2010, 02:57 AM
A two state solution is almost impossible now. You have two states which teach their children to hate each other
very contradictory statement. The whole point of a two state solution is because we dont have 2 states. Its not impossible for a two state solution.
Reply

titus
09-17-2010, 03:32 AM
You are right, my phrasing was off. A better way to put that would have been:

A two state solution is almost impossible now. You have these people that teach their children to hate each other.

When you are raised to believe that those that disagree with you are dogs, pigs and inhuman it makes it practically impossible to come to any kind of agreement with them.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-17-2010, 07:13 AM
Originally Posted by titus
When you are raised to believe that those that disagree with you are dogs, pigs and inhuman it makes it practically impossible to come to any kind of agreement with them.
I wonder how would you feel if mexico starts to lay claim on texas, sending out millions of mexicans to texas, drive out the local native texans from their homes and round them up inside "designated areas" like waco and then fence them all inside the area with no or little access and then time to time subject them with missiles and buldoze over their homes etc.
and then move mexico capital from mexico city to houston/dallas, while claiming the local native texans as terrorists?
Reply

titus
09-17-2010, 11:52 AM
Maybe send out suicide bombers and launch rockets at the Mexicans? Maybe continuously call for the extermination and elimination of Mexicans.

But maybe after 65 years or so of this I would realize that no matter how much I don't like them that they are not going anywhere, since all of the wars and violence have actually made things worse for my people. Maybe then I would have the sense to come to an agreement with them.
Reply

Junon
09-17-2010, 12:13 PM
Salaam

Originally Posted by titus
You are right, my phrasing was off. A better way to put that would have been:

A two state solution is almost impossible now. You have these people that teach their children to hate each other.

When you are raised to believe that those that disagree with you are dogs, pigs and inhuman it makes it practically impossible to come to any kind of agreement with them.
This betrays a total lack of understanding of the issue at hand. Characterising both peoples as you have is lazy and crass to put it bluntly. +o(

There has been an international consensus for over 30 years on how to solve the issue, the problem is that USA+Israel has continually blocked efforts to reach a peace settlement.

Read the history man, its a very straightforward and easy to conflict to understand and solve if the will was there.

In fact the conflict has similiar parallels with American history, after all whatever happend to the native Americans after the European settlers arrived?
Reply

Woodrow
09-17-2010, 12:42 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
I wonder how would you feel if mexico starts to lay claim on texas, sending out millions of mexicans to texas, drive out the local native texans from their homes and round them up inside "designated areas" like waco and then fence them all inside the area with no or little access and then time to time subject them with missiles and buldoze over their homes etc.
and then move mexico capital from mexico city to houston/dallas, while claiming the local native texans as terrorists?
To a large extent that has happened and is still taking happening. People whose ancestors lived in "Estado de Tejas" are considered illegal aliens when they cross the Rio Bravo (Rio Grande River) and come up into Texas. Many people of Mexican ancestry in the US live in ghettos and are treated as second class citizens if they are treated as citizens. But going back to pre Spanish conquest of the Americas, the land the home of the Tejas, Comanche, Caddo, Chiracua, Yaqi, Caranchua, and several other Native American tribes. Most of whom are now either relocate, exterminated or reduced to insignificant numbers. The Tejas for whom Texas was named are now extinct as are the Caranchua. The Yaqi are pretty much exiled to the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico, the Comanche have become spread out the Caddo are reduced to a small reservation in Livingston Texas with nearly all of their native culture erased. But this indignity the USA is not fully the fault of the USA. The Spanish did most of that prior to the formation of the USA and did the same thing in Mexico. Very few of the original Native Americans remain in large numbers. Gone are most of the Maya, and the other original people. today only about 10% of the Mexicans are Native American. The Two largest ethnic groups are Europeans (largely Spanish) and Mezitos (Mixed race, predominately European)
Reply

titus
09-17-2010, 01:24 PM
This betrays a total lack of understanding of the issue at hand. Characterising both peoples as you have is lazy and crass to put it bluntly.
It is a simplification, sure, but it is accurate.

To put the blame solely on the shoulders of Israel and the US for the lack of a settlement is, to put it bluntly, wrong. The Palestinian leadership has their fair share of the blame also.

In fact the conflict has similiar parallels with American history, after all whatever happend to the native Americans after the European settlers arrived?
Some similarities maybe, but for the most part it is completely different.

One big difference off the top of my head is that the Palestinian population has actually grown considerably since the creation of Israel. The same can not be said of Native Americans after Europeans arrived.

Apples and oranges.

Mezitos (Mixed race, predominately European)
Mestizo (don't want them mad at you for spelling it wrong).

You are dead on about the Native Americans. I think your characterization of people of Mexican ancestry is a little off, though. In Texas I don't think it makes much of a difference when applying for a job or running for office if you name is Smith or Garcia. Your legal status, on the other hand, and your ability to speak the language are huge factors.
Reply

Argamemnon
09-17-2010, 01:59 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas agree to deal within a year. It is assumed that any such deal would result in a two-state solution in which both a Palestinian state and Israel were seen as legitimate by each other, in addition a number of other very thorny and complicated issues would also have to be worked out.


If you would like to see this accomplished, what do you think it will take from each side to make this a reality?

If you are against it, what are your objections and why?
Nothing will come out of it as usual because Israel refuses to accept the International consensus.
Reply

Argamemnon
09-17-2010, 02:04 PM
Originally Posted by titus
To put the blame solely on the shoulders of Israel and the US for the lack of a settlement is, to put it bluntly, wrong. The Palestinian leadership has their fair share of the blame also.
That's not true, Israel (with U.S. support and protection) has never accepted the International consensus. As long as this continues Palestinians (including Hamas) have the right to resist occupation under International law. See UN Charter Art. 51.
Reply

Zafran
09-17-2010, 02:08 PM
Originally Posted by titus
It is a simplification, sure, but it is accurate.

To put the blame solely on the shoulders of Israel and the US for the lack of a settlement is, to put it bluntly, wrong. The Palestinian leadership has their fair share of the blame also.



Some similarities maybe, but for the most part it is completely different.

One big difference off the top of my head is that the Palestinian population has actually grown considerably since the creation of Israel. The same can not be said of Native Americans after Europeans arrived.

Apples and oranges.



Mestizo (don't want them mad at you for spelling it wrong).

You are dead on about the Native Americans. I think your characterization of people of Mexican ancestry is a little off, though. In Texas I don't think it makes much of a difference when applying for a job or running for office if you name is Smith or Garcia. Your legal status, on the other hand, and your ability to speak the language are huge factors.
Its not the palestinians that have been blocking the 30 year consensus (in the UN security council) of a two state solution - thats all thanks to the US vetoing against when the enire world is for it. The palestinians have leaders - the pity is that the US and Isreal dont want to talk to them - They dont want peace - they want a total compromise from the palestinians - which isnt going to happen - already the issues of borders, settlements, refugees and Jerusalem is against Isreal - under international law - those settelements are illiegal - the borders should go back to 1967 and east Jerusalem is meant to be the capital city of palestine - Isreal and the US know this well. This problem could have been solved years ago the US and Isreal dont want it that way.

Lets not even start with Gaza..............
Reply

Junon
09-17-2010, 02:27 PM
Salaam

It is a simplification, sure, but it is accurate.

To put the blame solely on the shoulders of Israel and the US for the lack of a settlement is, to put it bluntly, wrong. The Palestinian leadership has their fair share of the blame also.
Incorrect as competent historians, commentators have shown US-Israel governments have been leaders of the rejectionist camp blocking all attempts at a meaningful settlement. Actually thats not quite true there has been one break, and that was the Clinton Barak talks of 1999-2000, the problem with that is what was that the Palestinians were offered a bantustan state so naturally they declined the most 'generious' offer.

I do agree with you on blaming the Palestinian leadership. Their incompetence and severility to US-Israeli dictates is legendary, it would be good if they actually grew a spine and represented their own populations.

some similarities maybe, but for the most part it is completely different.

One big difference off the top of my head is that the Palestinian population has actually grown considerably since the creation of Israel. The same can not be said of Native Americans after Europeans arrived.
I agree to an exent the treatment of Palestinians by Israel has been bad, but in comparison to the treatment of native American populations by the european settlers its been a paradise.

In the United States they simply terminated the native populations. If my memory serves me correctly there were about 12 million to 15 million native Americans at the time Columbus landed. By the time the settlers reached continental borders of the USA there were about 200,000 and by that time the natives were forced into enclaves. Horrifying. In fact Hitler used the treatment of the native Americans as a model - he said thats what were going to do with the jews.

So on the one hand I agree, the treatment of the native Americans was far far worse in comparison with the lot of the palestinains, however they are comparable.
Reply

Woodrow
09-17-2010, 02:49 PM
Originally Posted by titus



Mestizo (don't want them mad at you for spelling it wrong).

You are dead on about the Native Americans. I think your characterization of people of Mexican ancestry is a little off, though. In Texas I don't think it makes much of a difference when applying for a job or running for office if you name is Smith or Garcia. Your legal status, on the other hand, and your ability to speak the language are huge factors.
Thanks for the spelling correction. My first language seems to be fluent typoerror. To a very large extent you are correct about little prejudice against Hispanics in Texas. But, it does raise it's ugly head in the smaller north Texas towns. Most noticeably in the NE Piney woods towns such as Marshall, Waskom, Paris, Uncertain and a bit south in Gun Barrel City.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-17-2010, 03:20 PM
Originally Posted by titus
To put the blame solely on the shoulders of Israel and the US for the lack of a settlement is, to put it bluntly, wrong. The Palestinian leadership has their fair share of the blame also.
Are you conveniently forgetting the fact of many UN resolutions that Israel has blatantly ignored over the years?
and many others that US has vetoed in the security council?
Reply

sister herb
09-21-2010, 07:06 AM
Salam alaykum;

this is how some Palestinians in the West Bank see possibilities to reach peace:

'Our situation worsens every day'
Palestinians in the West Bank's Dheisheh refugee camp explain why they have little faith in the talks.
Nora Barrows-Friedman

September 14, 2010

A second round of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are taking place under the auspices of Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, in Egypt's Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. Washington says it hopes the talks will lead to an agreement within a year.

Al Jazeera asked Palestinians living in the West Bank's Dheisheh refugee camp how they think the negotiations will impact them.

Tamer, 20, student at Bethlehem University

"Most of the people here think that these meetings are the same as the ones before - the meetings happen, and nothing changes. The leaders want to show people that they're making these meetings, but Israel has permission to do what it wants.

After the peace talks, the leaders will come back and they will sleep in their beds, they will wake up and nothing new will happen. They've had so many meetings before. In the camp, nothing's improving. We don't have water here. We don't have freedom. We have more problems each day."

Diaa, 18, musician

"We know the history of the negotiations. As Palestinians, we've learned a lot of lessons. We've already been in the negotiations for such a long time, and nothing has changed for us. There are no opportunities to achieve a real peace with Israel."

Marwan, 50, retail worker

"We've tried these negotiations for many years, and I don't think that these talks will bring anything new to our situation. People in the refugee camps understand the politics well. But their situation continues the same. We cannot see hope in the near future. I believe that somehow people give up on politics - they concentrate on how they can make a living.

This situation is getting worse. Every day is worse than the day before. This is what we see. Israel knows that it's the stronger side, so who can force them to give us anything? Because they have the whole cake, why should they give us a piece of it? Even the Americans can't force them to give us concessions.

These negotiations may delay a new war, but in the end, conflict and violence will rule. During the talks, they continue to build the settlements. They continue to take our land. They make us live in a big prison with the wall. So it's the same. Nothing will change.

We want peace. We want to live without fear of getting arrested or killed. For everyone in the camp, in the West Bank, and in the region, we are peaceful people. But when someone comes and occupies you, you have to resist."

Aisha, 40, mother

"Since a long time, we've hoped for change. But every time we go back to the negotiations, we get nothing in return.

This affects our whole lives. The problems with our children, our families, and domestic issues - it's all connected to the settlement issues, to the prison issues, to the economic issues.

Of course, the occupation affects children a lot. The situation here makes our children anxious and frightened. The negotiations won't change this. I don't think that our situation will improve after these negotiations."

Saeed Abu Mohammed, 56, father of a political prisoner

"Since the Oslo and Camp David agreements were signed, things have gotten worse. Today, the settlements and the checkpoints have increased. Before previous peace agreements, there were no settlements like there are now. The water and electricity problems have worsened since those negotiations. From the beginning, the Israelis have gained everything, and Palestinians have gained nothing.

The real peace would mean giving Palestinians control over their infrastructure and taking all the settlements out of the West Bank. This is the real peace. Anything else will never work."

Source: http://www.uruknet.com/?p=m69778&hd=&size=1&l=e
Reply

sister herb
09-21-2010, 07:08 AM
Many Palestinians and other analysists say this last one idea from Lieberman doesn´t help those kind of "negotiations" at all but may ruin them totally:

Israel’s foreign minister demands Arabs be stripped of citizenship

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Vita Bekker

The National, September 19, 2010

TEL AVIV // Israel’s foreign minister demanded yesterday that some of Israel’s Arab citizens be stripped of their citizenship and transferred to a future Palestinian state.

In comments that infuriated Arab Israeli legislators, Avigdor Lieberman, the head of the ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beitenu party, said the country’s borders should be redrawn to exclude any Israeli Arab who does not recognise Israel as a Jewish state. Israel’s Arab minority makes up about one-fifth of the country’s population.

Although Mr Lieberman’s proposal is not new, its timing may provoke Israeli Arabs and make Washington’s goal of reaching a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians within a year more difficult. Peace talks began this month.

"Whoever claims that he is fighting against Zionism should go over to become citizens of the Palestinian Authority," Mr Lieberman, whose party is the second-biggest in the governing coalition, told reporters before the weekly cabinet meeting.

He especially targeted Hanin Zoabi, an Arab-Israeli legislator who had been denounced as a traitor by several right-wing Jewish politicians because she was aboard an aid flotilla in May that protested Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip. "People like Hanin Zoabi should be Palestinian citizens and go get elected in Gaza by Hamas," he said.

Ms Zoabi responded yesterday by saying the foreign minister "represents apartheid and ethnic cleansing".

Mr Lieberman, whose party gained wide support in elections last year after questioning the loyalty of Arab citizens, also rejected trading land captured by Israel for peace. The "land for peace" concept has formed the foundation of peace talks with the Palestinians for almost two decades.

"The principle that guides us should not be territories for peace, but an exchange of territories and populations," Mr Lieberman said yesterday.

The foreign minister has said in the past that Israel’s borders should be redrawn so that some Arab communities are transferred to a future Palestinian state. At the same time, he has said Jewish settlements in the West Bank should be incorporated into Israel’s borders. Mr Lieberman, who lives in a settlement in the West Bank, said such a deal is necessary because many Israeli Arabs do not recognise Israel’s right to exist.

Husam Zamlot, a Palestinian spokesman, was quoted by the Associated Press as saying Mr Lieberman’s comments may complicate peace talks.

"He holds the second-most important position in the Israeli government. Therefore we are extremely discouraged by his remarks," Mr Zamlot said.

Mr Lieberman also repeated scepticism he has expressed in recent weeks about the peace talks. Referring by kunya (or honorific) to Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, which is conducting the negotiations with Israel, he said: "Abu Mazen will not sign a peace agreement, but we should try to reach a long-term interim arrangement."

The Palestinians have said they oppose negotiating an interim pact and demand that talks focus on a final deal on core issues.

http://www.uruknet.com/?p=m69917&hd=&size=1&l=e
Reply

sister herb
09-21-2010, 07:09 AM
And answer to Lieberman...

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, (PIC)-- Palestinian MP Mohammed Baraka said Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has once again proved he is a “Jackass in history and a denier of truth”.

This came in response to Lieberman’s racist comments calling for negotiations over presence of Palestinians in 1948 occupied Palestine.

“Lieberman once again proves he is an ass in history and a denier of truth. We did not sell our houses and country, but he came from afar to take control of it. We are the owners of the land and country, and we did not immigrate to it from any part of the world - not us, nor our fathers, nor our grandfathers.”

The far right foreign minister said the peace talks between PA chief Mahmoud Abbas and Israel should discuss exchanging land and people, and not just trading land for peace, referring to Palestinians in Israeli occupied territories.

http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/d...m%2fLS1r19Q%3d
Reply

titus
09-30-2010, 04:32 AM
Are you conveniently forgetting the fact of many UN resolutions that Israel has blatantly ignored over the years?
and many others that US has vetoed in the security council?
Nope. Are you forgetting the PLO Charter which called for the elimination of Israel? Are you forgetting the times that Palestinians ignored cease fires? Or the history of violence against Israeli civilians?

Like I said, neither side is blameless. The hatred runs deep and there is no way that either side can, humanely, get everything they want. The only humane answer left is to share.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-30-2010, 07:39 AM
Originally Posted by titus
Nope. Are you forgetting the PLO Charter which called for the elimination of Israel?
Are you forgetting that you should check your sources before writing lies here?
in 1996 PLO revoked the clause in its founding charter which called for the dissolution of Israel.
Now, has Israel retreated to its 1948 borders, and returning lands to its rightful owners?

Even if it's still there, why does it matter?
Israel is a ILLEGAL nation on other people's land.
Also, based on current capacity, PLO has the same chance of eliminating israel as Indian apache's chance in taking back american land, making Wahington DC as the capitol of american indians and sending back non-native americans to their respective homelands.

Originally Posted by titus
Are you forgetting the times that Palestinians ignored cease fires? Or the history of violence against Israeli civilians?
I am daring you to provide the statistics: how many times has israel ignored cease fires and how palestinians lives has israel killed.

Originally Posted by titus
The only humane answer left is to share.
Not until justice is served, which is impossible, as long as christian americans stay as israelis' *****es.
Reply

titus
09-30-2010, 12:06 PM
Are you forgetting that you should check your sources before writing lies here?
in 1996 PLO revoked the clause in its founding charter which called for the dissolution of Israel.
Please read my post more carefully before calling me a liar.

I had put it in the past tense. We are, after all, talking about the history between these two groups (Israelis and Palestinians).
I am daring you to provide the statistics: how many times has israel ignored cease fires and how palestinians lives has israel killed.
Like I said, both sides have blood on their hands. I find fault with both.

The only humane answer left is to share.
Not until justice is served, which is impossible, as long as christian americans stay as israelis' *****es.
It is exactly that attitude that makes peace impossible. The "my way or the highway" approach will lead to a few more generations of misery.

No matter how much you loathe the idea, the state of Israel is here to stay and nothing is going to change that.

What is your definition of "justice" here anyway?
Reply

Zafran
09-30-2010, 01:32 PM
Originally Posted by titus
It is exactly that attitude that makes peace impossible. The "my way or the highway" approach will lead to a few more generations of misery.

No matter how much you loathe the idea, the state of Israel is here to stay and nothing is going to change that.

What is your definition of "justice" here anyway?

This is your problem - do you even know that the current state of Isreal is occcupying illiegal land which is not recognised by the international community and do you know anything about the internationsal consensus of a 2 state solution for 30 years?
Reply

Ramadhan
09-30-2010, 01:43 PM
Originally Posted by titus
No matter how much you loathe the idea, the state of Israel is here to stay and nothing is going to change that
And Palestinians are here to stay, as they have been for thousands and thousands of years, and nothing is going to change that.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-01-2010, 05:50 AM
Originally Posted by titus
No matter how much you loathe the idea, the state of Israel is here to stay and nothing is going to change that.
Originally Posted by naidamar
And Palestinians are here to stay, as they have been for thousands and thousands of years, and nothing is going to change that.
Doesn't this mean that whether you like it or not we have to find a way to achieve a two-state solution? So, let's find a way to like it.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-01-2010, 07:38 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Doesn't this mean that whether you like it or not we have to find a way to achieve a two-state solution? So, let's find a way to like it.
Sure.

Tell that to your government who gives billions of dollars for free in cash every year to Israel, not to mention other types of assistance (military, politics, trades, citzenships, etc), further legitimizing the illegal occupiers.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-01-2010, 08:03 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Sure.

Tell that to your government who gives billions of dollars for free in cash every year to Israel, not to mention other types of assistance (military, politics, trades, citzenships, etc), further legitimizing the illegal occupiers.
What makes you think I and a few million other Americans haven't? You contine to make unfounded assumptions.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-01-2010, 10:13 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
What makes you think I and a few million other Americans haven't? You contine to make unfounded assumptions.
So you told your government to stop giving all those aid and money and absolute full backings to israel no question asked unless israel gives their commitment for a two state solution?
Reply

titus
10-01-2010, 01:06 PM
This is your problem - do you even know that the current state of Isreal is occcupying illiegal land which is not recognised by the international community and do you know anything about the internationsal consensus of a 2 state solution for 30 years?
I understand the situation.

I am not the one, though, that seems to think that only the Israelis have blocked a two state solution over the last 30 years. The Palestinian leaders have put up many roadblocks to such a solution during that time, so to attempt to paint the picture that the Palestinians have always wanted it and that the evil Israelis with their evil American money have been the only obstacle to peace is simply wrong.
Reply

muslimfirst
10-01-2010, 01:14 PM
THE NEED OF THE TIME
EDUCATION AND UNITY OF THE MUSLIM WORLD
THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE MUSLIM WORLD:
An undeclared war has been started against the Muslims. The atrocities faced by the Palestinians at the hands of Israel are not hidden from any one. Kashmir is another front where Muslims are suffering from the state terrorism of the Indian government. America looks determined to attack Muslim countries once again . They are giving a deaf ear to the disapproval and disagreement of the Muslim world and even of the other countries of the world on this issue. None of the Muslim countries is in a position to stop or resist this gross injustice towards Muslims. The Muslim world is divided politically in such a way that they don’t even have a common stance on any of the issues they are facing. The resources of the Muslim world are being maximally utilized by the non-Muslim world to their benefits. At the same time the cultural aggression of the west is taking the new Muslim generations away from their moral values. Is this state of affairs going to continue for ever?

WHAT CAN BE DONE?
The only ray of hope can emerge if The Muslim world decides to educate its masses in every field and take measures to bring them close to each other as a first step towards the one United Muslim World. Many references from Quran can be quoted pointing to the importance of education and unity. It has even told that Allah never changes the state of affairs of a nation unless its people try to change it themselves. And the first step towards unity is bringing the people of the Muslim world closer because no drastic measures can be taken for a united Muslim world at the moment because of the different political affiliations of the Muslim governments at international levels, the personal benefits of the rulers and also because the ‘World Powers’ will not allow any such measures.

It is the responsibility of every Muslim individual to educate his / her children at least to a basic level in religion as well as the modern sciences in such a way that later on they can relate Islam to their specific fields of interest and guide the Muslim world to Unity and prosperity.
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-01-2010, 01:19 PM
I think, and this is fairly obvious, that the Israelis have been riding the WW2 holocaust horse for a long time, and still do. Furthermore, whether you support your (US) government giving millions to Israel or not, the fact of the matter is you're paying taxes and the money is going there regardless. There isn't a donations box where you put money which the US give to Israel.
Reply

muslimfirst
10-01-2010, 01:19 PM
from 1972-2002 russia used its veto twice, france never used it and neither did china ...

the following is a list of resolutions vetoed by the usa during the same period:

1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Affirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Affirms the rights of the Palestinians.
1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.

1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.
1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.
1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.
1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.
1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.
1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.
1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.
1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports.
1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs ofstates.
1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.
1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions.
1980 Affirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.
1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.
1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation.

1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women.
1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.
1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.
1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries.
1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.

1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories.
1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons.
1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.
1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.
1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.

1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq. 18 resolutions.
1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. 6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).
1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.
1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.
1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.
1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts.
1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions.
1982 Supports a new world information and communications order.
1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
1982 Development of international law.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment .
1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.
1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions.
1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities .
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development. 8 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon. 2 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.
1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions.

1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.

1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.
1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace".
1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989).
1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.
1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.
1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.
1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
1995 Affirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.
1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions.
1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba. 8 resolutions (1992 to 1999).
2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.
_________________
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-01-2010, 01:27 PM
All they can do is condemn and call for stuff. They wouldn't dare actully do anything for the simple reason because the heads of banks, large organisations corporations won't allow it. However, they go willy nilly invading Iraq for no reason, just goes to show..
Reply

Zafran
10-01-2010, 03:32 PM
Originally Posted by titus
I understand the situation.

I am not the one, though, that seems to think that only the Israelis have blocked a two state solution over the last 30 years. The Palestinian leaders have put up many roadblocks to such a solution during that time, so to attempt to paint the picture that the Palestinians have always wanted it and that the evil Israelis with their evil American money have been the only obstacle to peace is simply wrong.
what road blocks??? - they must have been as large as the US's Veto power. Why would the palestinains even put up "road blocks" when all the land that they are meant to have (Gaza, westbank, east Jerusalem) is currently occupied by Isreal - wheres the palestinian state here? Its not just evil american money - its the US - on purpose letting Isreal occupy the land that was meant to go to the palestinains and make a palestine under international law and concensus - As we speak Gaza has a blockade, there are Isrealis settlers on west bank and east Jerusalem is under Isreals control and as the Nethanyu said - they are not splitting Jerusalem - so whos blocking the peace process here.

where I am wrong exactly here?

check artcle 242 UN security council. Its the basis for any peace talk.
Reply

alcurad
10-01-2010, 07:22 PM
I voted yes, would like to see how the Israeli side try to wriggle out it then..

a peace agreement would serve as an ideal "sword of Damocles". that would force the Israeli's to act in accordance with international law lest they actually have to abide by a peace agreement, it's not the Palestinian side that's against peace, it's the powerful money and business interests that serve the 'settlers', and tourists converging on stolen Palestinian land in East Jerusalem where most of the religious sites are, and let's not forget the Israeli army, just imagine the budget cuts it'll endure once peace reigns..

That's right, believe it or not it's got a lot to do about the money, religious sentiment is an exploitable asset at best, and more likely a sham, except for a few Zionist zealots.

see http://original.antiwar.com/cook/201...against-peace/

another major obstacle to peace is of course the U.S. policy of irrationally supporting every single act of the Zionists, but while browsing the net today in liu of Rahm Emanuel's resignation and appointemtn of Peter Rouse as chief of staff, I found this:"n a letter dated December 2006, Abourezk wrote:

"I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear—fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that very few members of Congress—at least when I served there—have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel. I’ve heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their bitter feelings about how they’re pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise. In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby’s animosity by making their feelings public...
I see no desire on the part of Members of Congress to further any U.S. imperial dreams by using Israel as their pit bull. The only exceptions to that rule is the feelings of Jewish members, who, I believe, are sincere in their efforts to keep U.S. money flowing to Israel.
I believe that divestment, and especially cutting off U.S. aid to Israel would immediately result in Israel’s giving up the West Bank and leaving the Gaza to the Palestinians. Such pressure would work, I think, because the Israeli public would be able to determine what is causing their misery and would demand that an immediate peace agreement be made with the Palestinians."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Abourezk

especially after the flotilla incident, the Israeli's have been under increasing scrutiny, they've never been weaker and as many have already said there's a great many reasons to expect this round of negotiations to be the last, come what will afterward.

A single state will most likely emerge in the end, with a few accommodations from neighboring countries on land etc, we can and should have peace as the ultimate goal, the debate about the means is secondary as history grinds on and cannot be stopped, the middle eastern nations are rising in power relative to the U.S. and this is happening now, Turkey, Iran and potentially Egypt-the three major powers in the region for centuries I might add-are becoming more aware of this new reality, so I'm really optimistic about the prospects for a final resolution to the conflict. accommodating the Jews who want to stay in Palestine won't be easy after over 6 decades of bloodshed, but it's not impossible, and it wasn't the Arabs who holocaust'ed anyone, rather the nations of the middle east have been able to live in peace before, and there's no need to transport all the Jwes back to Poland etc.
Reply

ChargerCarl
10-01-2010, 10:00 PM
Why not a secular state that doesn't discriminate against religion? Why can't Jews, Christians, Muslims, atheists, buddhist, etc live together?
Reply

جوري
10-01-2010, 10:32 PM
secular doesn't discriminate against religion? hilarious!
Reply

ChargerCarl
10-01-2010, 10:37 PM
That is the definition.
Reply

جوري
10-01-2010, 10:41 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
That is the definition.
actually it isn't.. that should be one more thing for you to look up before attempting to speak about it..
by definition:

secularism is
1-Of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations
2-Characteristic of or devoted to the temporal world as opposed to the spiritual world

that certainly doesn't equate with doesn't discriminate against religion.. and any remote look at current events, say in a country like France will dispel any myth that secularism = tolerance..
Reply

ChargerCarl
10-01-2010, 10:45 PM
Secularism is the seperation of church and state, which I think is very good. That way there is not state sanctioned religion and its citizens are free to practice their own beliefs without fear of state reprisal (unless of course those practices violate other citizens rights)

And of course no system is perfect vale, I'll agree with you there, however I think its the best one we have available to us. Theocracy does a very poor job at maximizing utility.
Reply

جوري
10-01-2010, 10:48 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
Secularism is the seperation of church and state, which I think is very good. That way there is not state sanctioned religion and its citizens are free to practice their own beliefs without fear of state reprisal (unless of course those practices violate other citizens rights)

And of course no system is perfect vale, I'll agree with you there, however I think its the best one we have available to us. Theocracy does a very poor job at maximizing utility.
Depends on the theocracy!
further let me assure you that there are no theocratic govt. currently in existence in any sovereign country!

all the best
Reply

ChargerCarl
10-01-2010, 10:51 PM
Do you think that there should be a state religion though?

Seems like it is unfair to all those who don't practice it.
Reply

جوري
10-01-2010, 11:07 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
Do you think that there should be a state religion though?

Seems like it is unfair to all those who don't practice it.
Like I said it depends on the religion!

all the best
Reply

alcurad
10-01-2010, 11:26 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
Do you think that there should be a state religion though?

Seems like it is unfair to all those who don't practice it.
this isn't strictly off topic but is headed to,,

to answer your point though, it's not an issue of religion for the most part, but that of land & money. Palestinians-regardless of religion-majorly owned the land, while for the past six decades the Jewish settlers are living on land that belonged to the Palestinians. this-very much-Palestinian land is the same land from which they are continuously evicted, to allow for 'settlements' to be built in their place in defiance of most laws one could think of.

just what does secularism have to do with any of this?
Reply

ChargerCarl
10-01-2010, 11:34 PM
Originally Posted by alcurad
just what does secularism have to do with any of this?
That a singular secular state would not (in theory of course)discriminate against Jews and Muslims and allow them to live together. Currently that is not the case.
Reply

ChargerCarl
10-01-2010, 11:35 PM
And yes, I know it's not completely dependent on religion. It was just a minor sidetrack.
Reply

alcurad
10-02-2010, 12:37 AM
there is one part of the equation that seems to not want peace and has through some reason or other the military, political and financial power to prevent it from happening.
again, given the variables on the ground, postulating a secular state as a solution to a conflict that is mostly about land seems to miss the point, and yes a secular state might be a workable solution, or it could be a federal government with international monitors acceptable to both sides until full integration occurs or it could be any number of possible solutions, that's not the issue, the issue is that all branches of the Israeli government -officially a parliamentary democracy-seem to be working to derail the peace process by any means necessary, and have done so since, before and after Oslo Accords/Camp David/etc etc..

for any government to work there has to be willingness to compromise and let live attitude from all parties, and that is currently not the case, majorly through the machinations of one side and not the other.

the Hamas/Fatah split wouldn't have occurred if not for American pressure either, which was mostly a reaction to powerful lobbying groups in the U.S. and not necessarily the will of Congress. given such powerful influence wielded by the Israeli government as a whole, a political process is not going to work, the situation is too lopsided for it to work. but again, I'd fully support a peace deal, but which side do you see that is derailing that by stealing land and constructing illegal settlements over it in defiance of international and even local law?
Reply

Ramadhan
10-02-2010, 01:25 AM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
Why not a secular state that doesn't discriminate against religion? Why can't Jews, Christians, Muslims, atheists, buddhist, etc live together?
I wonder where you learnt history.

When Palestine was under the rule of the Ottoman empire, muslims, christians and jews lived together in peace.

And then the Birtish invaded and occupied it and in ear;y 20th century the bristish PM Benjamin Disraeli under pressures from european jews decided to create the jewish state in Israel where they imported millions of jews into israel with the ultimate goal to create the exclusive jewsih state from river Jordan to the Mediterranean.
Reply

Darth Ultor
10-02-2010, 01:43 AM
God, do I wish it would come to a peace. But as long as the extremists on both sides are in power it will never happen. It's not like Jews and Muslims can't live in peace, we have before. I will say this: If I was a father, I would not send my children to fight in the Israeli Army for this stupid war.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-02-2010, 07:13 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
So you told your government to stop giving all those aid and money and absolute full backings to israel no question asked unless israel gives their commitment for a two state solution?
Absolutely!! And also that our government should not support Israels continued expansion of settlements, but put pressure on them to remove any recently built settlements. These are key among the issues I look at when considering who I vote for.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-02-2010, 07:24 AM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
Why not a secular state that doesn't discriminate against religion? Why can't Jews, Christians, Muslims, atheists, buddhist, etc live together?
Because of what Alcurad posted. Most Israeli's are not religious, but they are capitalists. And they have influence over religious nuts in the west: Jews who emotionally cling to the concept of a homeland and happen to have political power that is disproportional to their actual population. This power is not actually theirs, but is derived from the support they get from a fairly large contingent of Christian Zionists who see the whole thing as their answer to bringing about Armageddon, which they picture as the day they've been waiting all their lives for.


Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
Secularism is the seperation of church and state, which I think is very good. That way there is not state sanctioned religion and its citizens are free to practice their own beliefs without fear of state reprisal (unless of course those practices violate other citizens rights)

And of course no system is perfect vale, I'll agree with you there, however I think its the best one we have available to us. Theocracy does a very poor job at maximizing utility.
Actually this is the technical law in Israel, but the way the law is actually enforced is a completely different story.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-02-2010, 07:25 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Absolutely!! And also that our government should not support Israels continued expansion of settlements, but put pressure on them to remove any recently built settlements. These are key among the issues I look at when considering who I vote for.
Good for you, and as you claimed, you along with millions other americans are demanding your government to stop giving aid and full backings to israel.
So, why is it that the US government is being enslaved by israel (a small FOREIGN country) and does its bidding while ignoring the demand of its millions citizens?
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-02-2010, 07:32 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Good for you, and as you claimed, you along with millions other americans are demanding your government to stop giving aid and full backings to israel.
So, why is it that the US government is being enslaved by israel (a small FOREIGN country) and does its bidding while ignoring the demand of its millions citizens?
Because at present my voice is in the minority. (See what I said to ChargerCarl.)

I don't recall claiming that millions of Americans are demanding our government to stop giving aid and full backings to Israel. That number might in fact be true, but it is going to take more than millions to make those demands. It is going to take tens of millions making those demands to bring about change of the type you are wanting to see. That hasn't happened yet.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-02-2010, 07:43 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I don't recall claiming that millions of Americans are demanding our government to stop giving aid and full backings to Israel.
This is what you wrote:

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
What makes you think I and a few million other Americans haven't? You contine to make unfounded assumptions.
in reply to this:

Originally Posted by naidamar
Tell that to your government who gives billions of dollars for free in cash every year to Israel, not to mention other types of assistance (military, politics, trades, citzenships, etc), further legitimizing the illegal occupiers.
I hope you remember what you wrote. This kind of incident makes me to question the veracity of your posts.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
It is going to take tens of millions making those demands to bring about change of the type you are wanting to see. That hasn't happened yet.
It still doesn't answer my question:
why is The USA willing to be used by a small foreign country who has nothing to offer to the US as its bulldog?
What makes the US government so scared of Israel?
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-02-2010, 08:36 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
This is what you wrote:



in reply to this:



I hope you remember what you wrote. This kind of incident makes me to question the veracity of your posts.
I can see why you thought what you thought. That which you quoted was expressed as a question, not making a statement. That's why I didn't remember making a declaratory statement like the one you creditted to me.

[qyuote]It still doesn't answer my question:
why is The USA willing to be used by a small foreign country who has nothing to offer to the US as its bulldog?
What makes the US government so scared of Israel?[/QUOTE]
As I said above, I think that Alcurad addressed this.


In terms of questioning the veracity of my posts, all you have to do is read what I actually write, rather than read into them. Here we are in at least some agreement about what position the US ought to have with respect to Israel and Palestine. But you made a comment that I should tell the US government something before you knew whether I had or not. So, I asked you a question about what made you think that I had not?. Likewise, what made you think that millions of others had not? But these were questions about what made you think as you did, not expressions of my thought or assertions of any particular truth. Then later I did make a statement with regard to what I had done in speaking to my government, but hadn't included anything about "millions of Americans" in that statement at that time. So, I suspect that millions of American's have by our voice and vote told our government that we are not in agreement with US policy vis-a-vis Israel and Palestine. But I didn't actaully express that opinion until later after you had read that point of view into the question I put to you earlier. That's part of what I mean about reading into things and jumping to conclusions. And I think this is what may also be the cause of you being so confused by the Bible that you end up with interpretations of Christian theology that no Christian actually shares.
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-02-2010, 09:23 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
What makes the US government so scared of Israel?
Because all the (zionist) "jews" hold all the $$$ back home in the US. Their will, is US law.
Reply

titus
10-02-2010, 11:12 AM
what road blocks??? - they must have been as large as the US's Veto power. Why would the palestinains even put up "road blocks" when all the land that they are meant to have (Gaza, westbank, east Jerusalem) is currently occupied by Isreal - wheres the palestinian state here? Its not just evil american money - its the US - on purpose letting Isreal occupy the land that was meant to go to the palestinains and make a palestine under international law and concensus - As we speak Gaza has a blockade, there are Isrealis settlers on west bank and east Jerusalem is under Isreals control and as the Nethanyu said - they are not splitting Jerusalem - so whos blocking the peace process here.
Is it your contention that the Palestinian leaders have always called for a peaceful resolution? That they have always wanted to negotiate with Israel and that they have recognized Israels right to exist? That Palestinian leadership has not constantly called for violence against Israelis? That often their demands was for the elimination of Israel as a state, or demands that would essentially bring the end of the state of Israel?

When you have a group of people that have never stopped promising violence against you, why would you want to empower them by giving them their own state right next you and allowing them to build up a military when they have a history of encouraging your neighbors to attack you?

So you bet, I think the Palestinians have been part of the problem. I have always said that their violent methods and threats have hurt their cause more than it has helped them.

I wonder where you learnt history.

When Palestine was under the rule of the Ottoman empire, muslims, christians and jews lived together in peace.
That is like saying that black people lived together in peace with white people in Alabama in 1950. True peace means living together as equals, not as second class citizens.

And if you were taught that they lived together in peace and harmony and equality then you were taught incorrectly.
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
10-02-2010, 11:56 AM
the Zionists are already making life hell for the Palestinians without even owning the land. They are already taking from and destroying their crops and olive trees (their livelihood). I'd hate to see what they would do to the Palestinians/their lifestyle if they had the legal right.

2 state solution. my foot.
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-02-2010, 11:57 AM
Originally Posted by titus

That is like saying that black people lived together in peace with white people in Alabama in 1950. True peace means living together as equals, not as second class citizens.
And if you were taught that they lived together in peace and harmony and equality then you were taught incorrectly.
Think back to the crusades era, such as the ~12th century where Jerusalem was under christian control and they killed Muslims, but when it was reclaimed by Muslims, everyone (Jew, Christian, Muslim) lived peacefully. Coming back to the modern age, there is no problem if Jews want to claim Israel as their own, this is God's world and nobody has an issue with that, but where there problem lies is the fact that they are kicking out Palestinians from their homeland, after stealing it. If i came to your house now and kicked you out and made it mine, what would you to?...
It's the Zealot Christians (and Zionist Jews) who've always sparked rows.. I admit there are some idiotic Muslims too (Eg. individuals in Hamas) but most of the time they fight to protect their land which was stolen from them and to protect the people, obviously that's misportrayed by the media and we see it as otherwise.
Reply

titus
10-02-2010, 04:08 PM
Think back to the crusades era, such as the ~12th century where Jerusalem was under christian control and they killed Muslims, but when it was reclaimed by Muslims, everyone (Jew, Christian, Muslim) lived peacefully.
They lived together, true. But it was with Muslims in power and the others as second class citizens.
Reply

جوري
10-02-2010, 04:45 PM
Originally Posted by titus
They lived together, true. But it was with Muslims in power and the others as second class citizens.
It is amazing, to live as a second class citizen for instance after being exiled from Spain, and still under Muslim rule be able to write books mocking Muslims, such as was the case with the Jewish scholar Maimonides and yet live not only unharmed but honored in the midst!

curious indeed.. I like that kind of 2nd class citizenship!
Reply

titus
10-02-2010, 05:42 PM
I don't understand how Muslims can continuously bring up Maimonides as a sign of their tolerance when he was exiled by Muslims for being a Jew (the Jews were told by the Muslim leaders to either convert, leave or be killed. What compassion). It is a great example, though, of the "peaceful coexistence" that so many have in their head that did not exist.

History is useless if you ignore the parts that make you uncomfortable.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-02-2010, 06:03 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

It is amazing, to live as a second class citizen for instance after being exiled from Spain, and still under Muslim rule be able to write books mocking Muslims, such as was the case with the Jewish scholar Maimonides and yet live not only unharmed but honored in the midst!

curious indeed.. I like that kind of 2nd class citizenship!
If Maimonides could write books mocking Muslims and yet live not only unharmed but honored, why is it that the Muslim community today hasn't shown the same degree of tolerance for people like Salman Rushdie, Jerry Falwell, Taslima Nasreen, and Raheel Raza? Are they so much worse than Maimonides?
Reply

جوري
10-02-2010, 06:19 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
If Maimonides could write books mocking Muslims and yet live not only unharmed but honored, why is it that the Muslim community today hasn't shown the same degree of tolerance for people like Salman Rushdie, Jerry Falwell, Taslima Nasreen, and Raheel Raza? Are they so much worse than Maimonides?
You'll have to ask the community you speak of.. btw I love how you stick Jerry Falwell in there, perhaps you're getting your trolls mixed up again?.. maybe you should up the dose on your meds to clear the events in your memory..

all the best
Reply

جوري
10-02-2010, 06:20 PM
Originally Posted by titus
I don't understand how Muslims can continuously bring up Maimonides as a sign of their tolerance when he was exiled by Muslims for being a Jew (the Jews were told by the Muslim leaders to either convert, leave or be killed. What compassion). It is a great example, though, of the "peaceful coexistence" that so many have in their head that did not exist.

History is useless if you ignore the parts that make you uncomfortable.
Really he was exiled by Muslims? he didn't sit their in their midst writing 'Zhamm abna'a Ishmael'
history is indeed useless if colored to fit a political agenda!

all the best
Reply

جوري
10-02-2010, 06:28 PM
maybe books are going out of style I don't know..






Reply

titus
10-02-2010, 06:33 PM
Originally Posted by Ähµ ±lµ'a lïlÿ

Really he was exiled by Muslims? he didn't sit their in their midst writing 'Zhamm abna'a Ishmael'
history is indeed useless if colored to fit a political agenda!

all the best
Yes he was exiled and threatened with death, as were all the Jews where he lived, by the Muslim rulers. Since you seem unaware of this I suggest you read up on it.
Reply

جوري
10-02-2010, 06:35 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
maybe books are going out of style I don't know..





Originally Posted by titus
Yes he was exiled and threatened with death, as were all the Jews where he lived, by the Muslim rulers. Since you seem unaware of this I suggest you read up on it.

I suggest you try more books and less bull!

all the best
Reply

titus
10-02-2010, 06:45 PM
Since I don't want to ruin the ending for you please answer me this:

Who exiled him and who threatened the jews of his area with conversion, death or exile?

Look it up and let me know what you find.
Reply

جوري
10-02-2010, 06:47 PM
Originally Posted by titus
Since I don't want to ruin the ending for you please answer me this:

Who exiled him and who threatened the jews of his area with conversion, death or exile?

Look it up and let me know what you find.
I am pretty sure wikipedia has the answer for that, but let me ask you this, after his exile, where did he settle?

all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-02-2010, 06:49 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
You'll have to ask the community you speak of..
So, are you suggesting that I need to be more careful in to not view the Ummah as a whole, but rather as a collection of seperate communities? I could see how this might be so, but I didn't think that Muslims took that view. Perhaps I need to ask this question in another thread, but I am curious, what is the basic structural unit in Islamic society: the individual follower?, the family unit?, one's local masjid?, or the entire Ummah?

btw I love how you stick Jerry Falwell in there, perhaps you're getting your trolls mixed up again?
I included Falwell because, just like all the others I named, he was threatened with violence from members of the Ummah for what he said. Back in 2002, following an appearance by Falwell on 60 Minutes in he publically said, "I think Muhammad was a terrorist... he was a violent man, a man of war." Not surprising, this brought about refutations from Muslims around the world. But Ali Khamenei went so far as to issue a fatwa calling for Falwell's murder, saying that Falwell was a "mercenary and must be killed. The death of that man is a religious duty."


.. maybe you should up the dose on your meds to clear the events in your memory..
Not funny. I know you have no reason to be aware of my own present health concerns, so I know you were not making a jab at what I am actually going through at this point in my life. But, even still, as a health care professional, I would hope you would be more sensitive to the realities that people genuinely have to deal with in life and not use it as fodder for jokes and personal attacks.

You continue to wish me "all the best" at the close of each post. But comments like the above cause me to wonder if they are just words. Do you really mean it? I will tell you that we may have our theological (probably even political) disagreements, but I am sincere when I wish you well. قد توفر لك الله التوجيه ويرزقك نعمته.
Reply

جوري
10-02-2010, 06:54 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
So, are you suggesting that I need to be more careful in to not view the Ummah as a whole, but rather as a collection of seperate communities? I could see how this might be so, but I didn't think that Muslims took that view. Perhaps I need to ask this question in another thread, but I am curious, what is the basic structural unit in Islamic society: the individual follower?, the family unit?, one's local masjid?, or the entire Ummah?
The answer is really quite simple, is there a unified 'Muslim ummah' currently in existence? I am sure most would argue that the last of the ummahs dissolved with the dissolution of the Ottoman's!

I included Falwell because, just like all the others I named, he was threatened with violence from members of the Ummah for what he said. Back in 2002, following an appearance by Falwell on 60 Minutes in he publically said, "I think Muhammad was a terrorist... he was a violent man, a man of war." Not surprising, this brought about refutations from Muslims around the world. But Ali Khamenei went so far as to issue a fatwa calling for Falwell's murder, saying that Falwell was a "mercenary and must be killed. The death of that man is a religious duty."
Is Khomeni (a shiite) which I am pretty sure you are aware represent less than 10% of the Muslim world a representative of the Ummah? btw I find many similarities between you and falwell, perhaps you'd like to take over his legacy now that he alas met with his maker naturally and without the threat of a fatwa!

all the best
Reply

titus
10-02-2010, 07:38 PM
I am pretty sure wikipedia has the answer for that, but let me ask you this, after his exile, where did he settle?
Since refuse to answer the question I will answer it for you. He, his family, and all the Jews were told to leave, convert or die by their Muslim rulers.

After leaving his choices were pretty simple. Either Christian Europe, in which Jews were persecuted horribly, or another Muslim land in which Jews were merely looked down upon as second class citizens. He chose the lesser of the two evils.

Now if his choices had been between Egypt of the 12th century or Europe of the 21st century which do you think he would have chosen? Based on the way that Jews are treated the answer would most likely be modern Europe.

Take a look at the text you posted and look at the ambiguity. He is saying that his current Muslim rulers gave the Jews some autonomy while the Christian rulers gave them none. That is a far cry from any form equality. Sure, Muslim lands were, on the whole, more tolerant than Christian nations at the time but it was a harmony based on Muslim power and non-Muslim second class citizenship with religious minorities having little or no better options.
Reply

جوري
10-02-2010, 07:44 PM
Originally Posted by titus
Since refuse to answer the question I will answer it for you. He, his family, and all the Jews were told to leave, convert or die by their Muslim rulers.

After leaving his choices were pretty simple. Either Christian Europe, in which Jews were persecuted horribly, or another Muslim land in which Jews were merely looked down upon as second class citizens. He chose the lesser of the two evils.

Now if his choices had been between Egypt of the 12th century or Europe of the 21st century which do you think he would have chosen? Based on the way that Jews are treated the answer would most likely be modern Europe.

Take a look at the text you posted and look at the ambiguity. He is saying that his current Muslim rulers gave the Jews some autonomy while the Christian rulers gave them none. That is a far cry from any form equality. Sure, Muslim lands were, on the whole, more tolerant than Christian nations at the time but it was a harmony based on Muslim power and non-Muslim second class citizenship with religious minorities having little or no better options.
Those who are unequal wouldn't be able to travel freely from Muslim land to the next, live off its riches, rule by their own books, and write that which mocks those who have welcomed them. You fail to tell us where Maimonides was exiled, was he exiled to Europe? I believe he left Spain to Morocco and then Egypt etc.

if you want to talk about lack of equality, I believe Jews had more rights in Muslim lands, than Muslims currently do in the 'civilized secular west'

I'd actually take that kind of equality any day..

try ruling by sharia'a law in any court in a matter concerning only Muslims and let's see a mob seen and hate filled sentiments out..

pls. don't tickle me and do reference your information, there is something to be said of historical reference, than a cropped up website to suit the political tide!

all the best
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-02-2010, 07:51 PM
Originally Posted by titus
Since refuse to answer the question I will answer it for you. He, his family, and all the Jews were told to leave, convert or die by their Muslim rulers.

After leaving his choices were pretty simple. Either Christian Europe, in which Jews were persecuted horribly, or another Muslim land in which Jews were merely looked down upon as second class citizens. He chose the lesser of the two evils.

Now if his choices had been between Egypt of the 12th century or Europe of the 21st century which do you think he would have chosen? Based on the way that Jews are treated the answer would most likely be modern Europe.

Take a look at the text you posted and look at the ambiguity. He is saying that his current Muslim rulers gave the Jews some autonomy while the Christian rulers gave them none. That is a far cry from any form equality. Sure, Muslim lands were, on the whole, more tolerant than Christian nations at the time but it was a harmony based on Muslim power and non-Muslim second class citizenship with religious minorities having little or no better options.
Whao calm down there son, before you fall off your horse. Let's look at today than shall we, and how Palestinians are being treated, as that's the subject. While the Zionists can't kill them outright, they do so once the opportunity arises (Gaza war) and other than that, they are not even treated as second-class citizens, but rather being kicked out of their homes and having them destroyed and replaced by homes for Jews. Muslims are treated the same all over in the west and viewed as terrorists and what else, because of how the media portrays them and what their leaders do. There are a lot of public and open racists, and nothing is done to them, even though they clearly provoke with what they say (people like Nick Griffin).
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-02-2010, 08:22 PM
Originally Posted by -Fallen Angel-
Muslims are treated the same all over in the west .
What do you man when youTo say that Muslims are treated the same all over in the west? Are we to read this in the context of what is happening in Israel/Palestine? Surely you don't mean that in the US, Britian, Germany, Sweden, or Canada Muslims are kicked out of their homes and then those homes are destroyed and replaced by homes for Jews. Yet that is what your wrote. Did you mean for the above paragraph to be understood that way?
Reply

titus
10-02-2010, 08:26 PM
Whao calm down there son, before you fall off your horse. Let's look at today than shall we, and how Palestinians are being treated, as that's the subject. While the Zionists can't kill them outright, they do so once the opportunity arises (Gaza war) and other than that, they are not even treated as second-class citizens, but rather being kicked out of their homes and having them destroyed and replaced by homes for Jews. Muslims are treated the same all over in the west and viewed as terrorists and what else, because of how the media portrays them and what their leaders do.
You will not see me apologizing for the Israelis and the way they have treated the Palestinians. You won't, though, catch me saying that if the Palestinians took over that the Jews would be treated with respect as equals. You will find it almost impossible to find a group of people that hate another group more, as a whole, than Muslims in the Middle East hate, mistrust and despise Jews. To argue that Jews would be happy under any form of Palestinian rule is a pipe dream, and bringing up a whitewashed and inaccurate past of "Jews living happily under Muslim rule" is extremely counterproductive and completely wrong.

I would rather be a Muslim in the US today than a Jew in Egypt in the 12th century. Few who know their history can deny that there is hardly any comparison between the two.

You fail to tell us where Maimonides was exiled, was he exiled to Europe?
Read my post again. It is fairly clear that he went to Muslim lands and not Europe. I will try to be more explicit in my descriptions next time for you.

Those who are unequal wouldn't be able to travel freely from Muslim land to the next, live off its riches, rule by their own books, and write that which mocks those who have welcomed them.
Unequal does not equal slavery. You can be a second class citizen and still be allowed to travel and move around and be allowed some freedoms.

Don't make it seem, though, that Jews ruled themselves and had complete autonomy. They had some allowances in policing themselves, but if it in any way involved a Muslim then it was a Muslim court that made the decision. The Jews only had as much rope as the Muslim leaders allowed them to have, and on more than one occasion they used that rope to hang the Jews with.
Reply

جوري
10-02-2010, 08:30 PM
Originally Posted by titus
Read my post again. It is fairly clear that he went to Muslim lands and not Europe. I will try to be more explicit in my descriptions next time for you.
Oh so he did go to Muslim lands and was welcome there and even went on to write about it, along side with other crap he wrote if we are to take his account truthfully and well why shouldn't we?


Unequal does not equal slavery. You can be a second class citizen and still be allowed to travel and move around and be allowed some freedoms.
Well I can tell you right now, that we can't govern by Islamic sharia'a law amongst Muslims in the free west as the Jews were able to do in Muslim lands!
Don't make it seem, though, that Jews ruled themselves and had complete autonomy. They had some allowances in policing themselves, but if it in any way involved a Muslim then it was a Muslim court that made the decision. The Jews only had as much rope as the Muslim leaders allowed them to have, and on more than one occasion they used that rope to hang the Jews with.
That is your opinion and history has a different tale to tell!

all the best
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-02-2010, 08:39 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
What do you man when youTo say that Muslims are treated the same all over in the west? Are we to read this in the context of what is happening in Israel/Palestine? Surely you don't mean that in the US, Britian, Germany, Sweden, or Canada Muslims are kicked out of their homes and then those homes are destroyed and replaced by homes for Jews. Yet that is what your wrote. Did you mean for the above paragraph to be understood that way?
By that i meant they are treated like s***. While it's not made public, i personally know some people who have lived in the US and faced abuse, and i know of many people who live in the UK, and have faced abuse. It's all to do with how the Government and Media portrays Muslims and their image, only trying to destroy it. I suggest you look at this, that's an example of what i mean.

Originally Posted by titus
You will not see me apologizing for the Israelis and the way they have treated the Palestinians. You won't, though, catch me saying that if the Palestinians took over that the Jews would be treated with respect as equals. You will find it almost impossible to find a group of people that hate another group more, as a whole, than Muslims in the Middle East hate, mistrust and despise Jews. To argue that Jews would be happy under any form of Palestinian rule is a pipe dream, and bringing up a whitewashed and inaccurate past of "Jews living happily under Muslim rule" is extremely counterproductive and completely wrong.
That's pretty obvious, and there are more than one reasons for this. Jews and Muslims have lived fine before, is it really hard for it to happen again, regardless of whose in power? The simple answer is yes, and an example of that is Israel today. Nobody asked you to apologise for the actions of Zionists today and it is clear that one group would not want to live under the rule of another, especially if the their beliefs are different. It would be like the US population, acustomed to "democracy", going and living in a "communist" state (China for example). As for your statement of "You will find it almost impossible to find a group of people that hate another group more, as a whole, than Muslims in the Middle East hate, mistrust and despise Jews.", i'm sorry, but that's just total and utter horse excrement. Yea boy keep reciting what the media and your leader(s) are telling you. If you're gonna debate with what you see on tv then you're better off going elseware to discuss such topics. It would be ok if you're open to new ideas and possibilities, or have an ear open to hear others but you just make acusations, which are what's said on the tv and we all know all that is a lie, made to destroy Muslims' image, and make the corporations $$$.
Peace.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-02-2010, 08:53 PM
Originally Posted by -Fallen Angel-
By that i meant they are treated like s***.
This can be true. Not everywhere, and not all the time, and certainly not by everyone. But even a single occurance is wrong, and I know that there are much more than single occurances.

While it's not made public, i personally know some people who have lived in the US and faced abuse, and i know of many people who live in the UK, and have faced abuse. It's all to do with how the Government and Media portrays Muslims and their image, only trying to destroy it.
The media also helps to encourage better dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims and contributes to better understanding that benefits all. The following show was the prime time offering of ABC-TV Friday night: What Is Islam? Questions and Answers.
Reply

'Abd Al-Maajid
10-04-2010, 10:26 AM
I didn't read all the posts in this thread, it's so lengthy. But I want to share my thoughts on Peace in Palestine, I think the Palestinians should leave the land as it will only cost them their lives. They should migrate to other Arab countries and other Arab countries should take their part in this and should give instant citizenships to Palestinians as Israel does for Jews across the world. Come on, it has been prophesied that they will come back and live in Bilad Canaan and they are doing it and it is only the Palestinian Muslims who are suffering.
PLEASE HAVE YOUR SAY.
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
10-04-2010, 12:21 PM
^Migrate then what? what will happen to masjid al-Aqsaa?

stay, i say. al-Quds is the love of the shuhadaa.

realistically speaking, is someone was to invade your home, you're going to pick yourself up and move out? i dont believe this.
Reply

'Abd Al-Maajid
10-04-2010, 12:42 PM
If someone invaded my home, killing my people, 'swallowing' my land I'd do the same (leave), and I think it is the most pragmatic solution when you are dealing with Israel.

I have to admit that I never thought of Al-Quds. STUPID ME!!! :embarrass
Reply

Zafran
10-06-2010, 03:02 AM
Now if his choices had been between Egypt of the 12th century or Europe of the 21st century which do you think he would have chosen? Based on the way that Jews are treated the answer would most likely be modern Europe

well sorry to break your bubble but Egypt has a a very old minorities such as the coptics which have been living there for centuries - the same cannot be said for muslims in the UK, France, Germany or any western nation. Tolerance is a very new thing for Europe and it isnt handling it well - theres always rightwing sparks here and there.

Lets not forget why americans ran away from europe in the first place Or why Jews are a bit better now - thats because of the Holocaust. thats what it took europe to finaly become tolerant when the rest of the world such as India, China, Africa and the mid east have a history of tolerating minorities.

I would rather be a Muslim in the US today than a Jew in Egypt in the 12th century. Few who know their history can deny that there is hardly any comparison between the two.
Try telling that to the taxi driver who got stabbed for being a muslim in the US.
Reply

titus
10-06-2010, 03:25 PM
well sorry to break your bubble but Egypt has a a very old minorities such as the coptics which have been living there for centuries
You want to use the Copts as an example of peaceful coexistence? Are you aware of the multiple persecutions that the Copts have had to deal with at Muslim hands? Are you aware of the forced conversions of the past or the destruction of religious sites? Are you aware that even today they have difficulty fixing up their churches because to do so they have to have special government permission? Are you aware of the number of Copts that have left Egypt over the last 50 years because of their treatment?

thats what it took europe to finaly become tolerant when the rest of the world such as India, China, Africa and the mid east have a history of tolerating minorities.
I think your familiarity with history, and even modern times, is seriously lacking. You want to use China as an example of tolerance and Europe as an example of Intolerance? Look at how the communist government has treated Muslims and Buddhists over the last 50 years. You want the Middle East to be your example of tolerance of minorities? Which examples do you want? The Ba'hai in Iran? Or the almost non-existent population of Jews in Muslim countries after the massive migration over the last 100 years? You want to see the poll numbers on how "tolerant" Muslims in the Middle East are with Jews? You want to use the Copts as an example of Muslim tolerance again?

Try telling that to the taxi driver who got stabbed for being a muslim in the US.
There are always exceptions, but also realize that the Muslim who got stabbed was the target of an individual. There is a huge difference between state persecution of a minority, and random acts of violence against a minority that the government condemns.

The person who stabbed the Muslim you mention, if found, will be prosecuted by the US government. The examples I brought up were the government doing the persecutions and murders and forced conversions themselves. Huge difference.
Reply

جوري
10-06-2010, 05:07 PM
Originally Posted by titus
You want to use the Copts as an example of peaceful coexistence? Are you aware of the multiple persecutions that the Copts have had to deal with at Muslim hands? Are you aware of the forced conversions of the past or the destruction of religious sites? Are you aware that even today they have difficulty fixing up their churches because to do so they have to have special government permission? Are you aware of the number of Copts that have left Egypt over the last 50 years because of their treatment?
You know little to nil on the situation of copts of Egypt- you have a very superficial approach to everything. If I give you a little history that dates back to 'baba shenuda' sometimes in the mid 1950's you'd be blown away by how indoctrinated you are with the current political tides.
You really don't want to go there!

but if you want to stay on top of things and know a little Arabic and a little of Egyptian culture I'd start here:

وفاء قسطنطين اعتنقت الإسلام بعد مشاهدتها برنامج تلفزيوني البابا شنوده يعتكف في دير الإنبا بيشوي احتجاجا على "خطف" المسيحيات




تصلي في الخفاء
لست مراهقة ساذجة



القاهرة - محمد حمدي
أضاف البابا شنودة الثالث بطريرك الأقباط الأرثوذكس بعدا جديدا للأزمة في أوساط الأقباط المصريين عقب الأنباء التي ترددت عن اختفاء زوجة أحد القساوسة في مدينة أبو المطامير بمحافظة البحيرة شمال غرب العاصمة المصرية بعد إشهار إسلامها، حيث ذهب الباب للاعتكاف في دير الإنبا بيشوي بوادي النطرون وألغى عظته الأسبوعية التي يلقيها مساء كل أربعاء في كاتدرائية الأقباط الأرثوذكس في ضاحية العباسية شرق القاهرة في إشارة على عدم رضاه عن الأوضاع القائمة.

ويعتبر لجوء البابا شنودة إلى الاعتكاف في دير الإنبا بيشوي تعبيرا عن الاحتجاج على وضع ما، وهو أسلوب يلجأ إليه البابا شنودة الثالث حينما تتوتر علاقاته مع الدولة.
وكان موقع قبطي على الإنترنت قد ذكر أن فتاة مسيحية تدعى نورا عبد الله فهيم من مدينة الفرافرة في محافظة الوادي الجديد التي تبعد عن القاهرة حوالي 500 كم، قد اختفت أيضا وأشار الموقع إلى أن نورا تعمل في مستشفى الفرافرة بنفس المحافظة وهي خريجة معهد صحي أسيوط ويعيش والدها في قرية غرب الموهوب مركز الداخلة وهي مقيمة بالمستشفى التي تعمل فيه تحت التدريب.
وقد شجعها شاب مسلم يعمل عامل بنفس المستشفى اسمه تامر عبد الحكيم مقيم بقرية الكفاح مركز الفرافرة محافظة الوادي الجديد وهو أصلا من دكرنس على الاختفاء معه من حوالي شهر تقريبا وقد ترددت الأخبار بأنه قد تزوجها زواجا عرفيا، ولكن لم يتردد أنها أشهرت إسلامها حتى الآن وقد أبلغ والدها الجهات الأمنية والسياسية بالمحافظة.
وأشار الموقع إلى أن القمص بيشوي المحرقي المسؤول عن الخدمة بالوادي الجديد قد أبلغ كل الجهات التي تعاطفت مع الموقف بكل اهتمام ولكن حتى الآن لم يعثر عليها ولم تعد هي أو الشاب إلى عملهما لحد الآن، وقد أبلغ والدها مدير النيابة العامة متهما الشاب بتحريضها على الهروب وأمرت النيابة بضبطه.
من جانب آخرنجحت السلطات المصرية مؤخرا في عقد لقاء بين السيدة وفاء قسطنطين وخمسة من مطارنة الكنيسة المصرية لمناقشتها حول ما أعلن عن اعتناقها الإسلام، وذلك في محاولة منها لاحتواء الأزمة المثارة في مصر، بعد أن سرت شائعات فحواها أن وفاء اختطفت وأجبرت على اعتناق الإسلام.
وبحسب تصريحات لصحيفة "الشرق الأوسط"، فإن قسطنطين بدأت علاقتها بالإسلام منذ حوالي عامين، عندما شاهدت أحد البرامج التلفزيونية بالصدفة وكان يقدم شرحاً وتفسيرا لإحدى الآيات القرآنية، "فاكتشفت أن القرآن يتحدث بلغة العلم الحديث".
ولأنها درست العلوم والزراعة، كما تذكر، فقد تأنت وفاء في تقديرها للموقف وطلبت من أحد زملائها المسلمين الذي "تثق فيه" أن يمدها بكتب عن الإسلام وتفسيره، "فاكتشفت أن الإسلام ليس كما عرفت دين عنف وتكفير للآخر، فقررت اعتناقه من دون أن يدرك أحد ذلك أويعرف سرها أحد، إلى أن حدثت التطورات الأخيرة".
وقد تسبب اعتناق المهندسة وفاء قسطنطين الإسلام بـ"ثورة غضب" بين بعض أوساط المجتمع القبطي، وذلك رغم تكذيب وزارة الداخلية المصرية للأخبار التي أفادت بـ"خطف وفاء"، وتأكيدها أن السيدة البالغة من العمر 46 عاما أسلمت بكامل إرادتها، وتركت بيتها في مدينة أبوالمطامير في محافظة البحيرة في دلتا مصر 146 كيلومترا شمال القاهرة من دون أي ضغوط خارجية.
تجدر الإشارة إلى أن وفاء قسطنطين مسيحية المولد والمنشأ، ولدت في عام 1959، في محافظة المنوفية بدلتا مصر لأسرة مسيحية، تملك المال والسمعة الطيبة، عاشت في محافظة المنوفية 23 عاما مع عائلتها قبل أن تنتقل إلى مدينة أبوالمطامير عقب زواجها. ملامحها هادئة وهي بيضاء مشربة بحمرة، وتحرص الآن على ارتداء الحجاب الذي يغطي شعرها.

تصلي في الخفاء
وفي مطلع الثمانينات حصلت على إجازة جامعية في الهندسة الزراعية، ثم تزوجت من أحد القساوسة، وأنجبت منه ابنا هوالآن مهندس وابنة تدرس في كلية العلوم جامعة الإسكندرية، وحينما شاهدت بالمصادفة برنامجا تلفزيونيا في التلفزيون المصري تناول فيه أحد المتحدثين تفسيرا للقرآن بشكل مبسط، فاكتشفت أن القرآن الذي نزل على محمد منذ ما يزيد على 1400 عام تحدث بلغة بسيطة يفهمها الجميع.. فبدأت تركز فيما تسمع حتى نهاية البرنامج التلفزيوني، وهي تشعر بشيء غامض ينبض به قلبها، وكأن صدرها ينشرح ـ كما تقول ـ لشيء مجهول لا تعي ماهية طبيعته.. ولأنها درست العلوم الزراعية اكتشفت أن الإسلام ليس كما عرفت دين عنف وتكفير للآخر، ووجدت فيه إجابات عن أسئلة كانت تشغل تفكيرها منذ سنوات، وكلما قرأت وتعلمت، أدركت سلامة موقفها وصحته، فزاد تمسكها بالإسلام الذي اعتنقته دون أن يدرك أحد ذلك، أويعرف سرها أحد، فكانت تصلي في غياب أسرتها أوفي حجرتها بعيدا عن أعينهم بعد أن تغلق عليها الباب بالمفتاح.
وقد صامت شهر رمضان قبل الماضي والماضي، مبررة امتناعها عن الطعام بألم حاد ينتابها بين الحين والآخر في معدتها، إلا أن وفاء لم تدرك أن عين ابنتها كانت تشعر التغيير الذي ألم بوالدتها، حتى كان يوم استمعت فيه الابنة لمحادثة هاتفية بين وفاء وزميلها المسلم الذي كانت تطلب منه أحد الكتب الدينية، وكان ذلك منذ عام.
وعن ذلك اليوم، ذكرت وفاء لصحيفة الشرق الأوسط أنها "تعجبت من عدم خوفي من اكتشاف ابنتي لأمر إسلامي ووجدتني أهدئها وأحدثها عن الإسلام لأقنعها به، ولكنها لم تقتنع، فطلبت منها عدم كشف سري فوافقت، واستمر الحال بي إلى أن شعرت قبل رمضان الماضي بأنني لا أستطيع أن أحيا طيلة حياتي بهذا الأسلوب، وخاصة مع زوج غير مسلم، فصارحت زميلي بما يعتمل في داخلي، فوعدني بتدبر الأمر، وبالفعل نجح في أن يجد لي مكانا خارج مدينتي لدى إحدى الأسر المسلمة في القاهرة، وكان من المقرر أن أترك البيت قبل رمضان، وآتي للقاهرة لإشهار إسلامي، إلا أن ابنتي كانت تضيّق عليّ رقابتها بعد أن شعرت بما أنوي فعله، فلم أفلح في ترك المنزل قبل رمضان".

لست مراهقة ساذجة
وتكمل وفاء قصتها بأنها نجحت في إقناع أسرتها منذ ثلاثة أسابيع في الذهاب إلى الإسكندرية (200 كيلومتر شمال القاهرة) لقضاء عدة أيام في شقتهم التي يملكونها هناك.. كان ذلك يوم جمعة، وبالفعل قضت ليلتها في الإسكندرية، وفي صباح السبت حضر لها زميلها الذي اصطحبها إلى القاهرة دون علم أحد وتوجه بها إلى تلك الأسرة المسلمة التي كان قد اتفق معها على استضافة وفاء.
ورحبت الأسرة بوفاء وأحاطتها بالحنان، خاصة عندما بكت مع اقتراب عودة زميلها إلى مدينتهما، متذكرة ابنها وابنتها.. فما كان من رب العائلة المضيفة لها، إلا أن أخبرها أنها بإمكانها العودة إن أرادت، فردت عليه مؤكدة أنها اختارت طريقها الجديد رغم شوقها الكبير لأولادها.
وقد اصطحب رب الأسرة وفاء إلى قسم الشرطة لإثبات حالها وسماع أقوالها في أنها جاءت بمحض إرادتها، بعدها ذهبت إلى مباحث أمن الدولة التي استمعت لها وسألتها عما إذا كانت قد تعرضت لأي ضغوط لإجبارها على الإسلام، فنفت ذلك.. ثم سألوها إذا كانت ترغب في العودة لأبنائها وعائلتها فأكدت لهم عدم ندمها على اختيارها.
عندئذ سألوها إذا كانت تريد الانتقال إلى بيت آخر أومكان إقامة غير الذي تقيم فيه، فأكدت لهم راحتها مع تلك الأسرة المسلمة التي تحيطها بكل رعاية، وخرجت وفاء دون أن تعلم أن هناك نارا مشتعلة بدأت بشائعات في مدينتها، بأن المسلمين خطفوها ليجبروها على الإسلام.
وتتعجب وفاء قائلة "لم أتخيل يوما أن تحتل أخباري قنوات الأخبار والصحافة العالمية، وأن تقوم وتندلع المظاهرات بسببي.. ولكن أقول لأي مسيحي إنني اتخذت قراري بمحض إرادتي، دون أي ضغوط.. لقد عرفت طريقي.. وانشرح قلبي على مدى عامين.. كما أنني لست فتاة مراهقة أوغير ناضجة من الممكن التأثير عليّ.


before offering your all too frequent pearls!
I think your familiarity with history, and even modern times, is seriously lacking. You want to use China as an example of tolerance and Europe as an example of Intolerance? Look at how the communist government has treated Muslims and Buddhists over the last 50 years. You want the Middle East to be your example of tolerance of minorities? Which examples do you want? The Ba'hai in Iran? Or the almost non-existent population of Jews in Muslim countries after the massive migration over the last 100 years? You want to see the poll numbers on how "tolerant" Muslims in the Middle East are with Jews? You want to use the Copts as an example of Muslim tolerance again?
Said the kettle to the pot!


There are always exceptions, but also realize that the Muslim who got stabbed was the target of an individual. There is a huge difference between state persecution of a minority, and random acts of violence against a minority that the government condemns.
Very good!
The person who stabbed the Muslim you mention, if found, will be prosecuted by the US government. The examples I brought up were the government doing the persecutions and murders and forced conversions themselves. Huge difference.
:haha: sure.. not sure what sort of justice that is? perhaps a la mode of holding 'terrorists' without trial and for the hell of it!

all the best
Reply

Zafran
10-07-2010, 12:31 AM
You want to use the Copts as an example of peaceful coexistence? Are you aware of the multiple persecutions that the Copts have had to deal with at Muslim hands? Are you aware of the forced conversions of the past or the destruction of religious sites? Are you aware that even today they have difficulty fixing up their churches because to do so they have to have special government permission? Are you aware of the number of Copts that have left Egypt over the last 50 years because of their treatment
wheres your proof for all this? Its shocking that theres millions of copts still living in Egypt - there shouldnt be any if what you say is actually true. Give me a single example of muslims living in the UK, France or germnay for as long as the copts have been in Egypt. We're not talking about 50 years here but for 1000s.

I think your familiarity with history, and even modern times, is seriously lacking. You want to use China as an example of tolerance and Europe as an example of Intolerance? Look at how the communist government has treated Muslims and Buddhists over the last 50 years. You want the Middle East to be your example of tolerance of minorities? Which examples do you want? The Ba'hai in Iran? Or the almost non-existent population of Jews in Muslim countries after the massive migration over the last 100 years? You want to see the poll numbers on how "tolerant" Muslims in the Middle East are with Jews? You want to use the Copts as an example of Muslim tolerance again?
Yeah I like to see them, can european tolernace beat china, mid east, Africa or India for the last 1000 years, can you find any muslims living for a thousand years of generations in the UK, France or Germany? Talking about Iran have you seen the Jewish population in Iran. Can you name any european country where muslims have lived longer in europe then the Iranian Jews in Iran. Why did the Jews migrate - was Isreal not created around 50 years ago. History doesnt start 100 or 50 years ago even though european tolernace did and it seems for you it does too. The irony is that minorities have been tolerated all over the world for 1000 years expect europe which became tolerant around 50 years ago - its a new thing for them - you as an american should understand this more then any other person as most americans did run away from europe.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-07-2010, 06:27 AM
Titus, you are really an ignorant.

let me tell you, in Indonesia, which is the largest muslims country in the world, non-muslims hold all kind of important jobs like governors, ministers, etc.
And the other religions' holidays such as christmas, easter, waisya (buddha), galungan/kuningan/nyepi (for hindu) are designated as national holidays. Same thing in Malaysia as well.

Are Eidul fitri and eidul adha national holidays in the USA? are they in europe?
no?
ok, then shut your trap and stop bragging about how the western countries have high tolerance towards Islam and do not discriminate muslims.
Reply

titus
10-08-2010, 03:35 AM
Naidamar, I don't recall ever having said anything negative about Indonesia when speaking about intolerance. I won't be rude and call you names or ask you to shut your trap as you did to me, but I would ask that you actually read my posts before getting upset and responding with posts that have nothing to do with what I posted.

Its shocking that theres millions of copts still living in Egypt - there shouldnt be any if what you say is actually true.
Using that logic then I guess that black people were never treated poorly in the United States, nor were the Native Americans since there are so many still here, nor are the Palestinians today treated poorly.

Give me a single example of muslims living in the UK, France or germnay for as long as the copts have been in Egypt. We're not talking about 50 years here but for 1000s.
The longevity of a group in an area is not the prime factor in how the government treats them. Nor is it in any way relevant to how they are treated currently, or 500 or 1000 years ago.
Reply

titus
10-08-2010, 03:44 AM
Are Eidul fitri and eidul adha national holidays in the USA? are they in europe?
no?
ok, then shut your trap and stop bragging about how the western countries have high tolerance towards Islam and do not discriminate muslims.
No, they are not, but mainly because of the small percentage of the population that is Muslim. I can quote you some of the laws, though, from here in the US:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer --

(1) To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) To limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.



......

Once the employee advises the employer of the sincerely held religious belief, the burden shifts to the employer to accommodate that belief. The employee should suggest accommodation alternatives. In the example of working on the Sabbath or Sunday noted above, the employee can offer to work on an alternative day or suggest other employees who may work the Sabbath or Sunday shift.

The employer must undertake efforts to accommodate the employee's religious belief. An employer cannot establish a zero tolerance policy against accommodating religious belief and practice. The employer must take seriously its obligation to accommodate the belief.


If you tell your employer that you are Muslim when you are hired then he is required by law to accommodate your religious beliefs, including prayer and holidays. So while Eid is not a national holiday all Muslims may have that day off, as well as Fridays if they wish.
Reply

جوري
10-08-2010, 04:02 AM
Originally Posted by titus
No, they are not, but mainly because of the small percentage of the population that is Muslim. I can quote you some of the laws, though, from here in the US:

Muslims outnumber Jews in the U.S and we have off all Jewish holidays.
laws look nice on paper but they don't translate well in life. I know many people who are unable to take off for their holidays.

all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-08-2010, 04:17 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


Muslims outnumber Jews in the U.S and we have off all Jewish holidays.
Really?! How did you get them off? We sure didn't here. The following is the list of recognized federal holidays for 2010:
Friday, January 1, New Year’s Day
Monday, January 18, Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Monday, February 15*, Washington’s Birthday
Monday, May 31, Memorial Day
Monday, July 5**, Independence Day
Monday, September 6, Labor Day
Monday, October 11, Columbus Day
Thursday, November 11, Veterans Day
Thursday, November 25, Thanksgiving Day
Friday, December 24***, Christmas Day

If you got something more than this off, you found a generous boss. I know a lot of people who are lucky to get even these.
Reply

جوري
10-08-2010, 04:52 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Really?! How did you get them off? We sure didn't here. The following is the list of recognized federal holidays for 2010:
Friday, January 1, New Year’s Day
Monday, January 18, Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Monday, February 15*, Washington’s Birthday
Monday, May 31, Memorial Day
Monday, July 5**, Independence Day
Monday, September 6, Labor Day
Monday, October 11, Columbus Day
Thursday, November 11, Veterans Day
Thursday, November 25, Thanksgiving Day
Friday, December 24***, Christmas Day

If you got something more than this off, you found a generous boss. I know a lot of people who are lucky to get even these.
you must come from a small town? indeed in NY both Rosh Hashana and yom Kippur are holidays where schools and most govt. places are closed.
Hanukkah seems to fall at the same heel of xmas so it too is an automatic time off. No such luck with the only two religious holidays of the Islamic calendar.

Try to travel a little and I am my own boss!

all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-08-2010, 05:13 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

you must come from a small town? indeed in NY both Rosh Hashana and yom Kippur are holidays where schools and most govt. places are closed.
Hanukkah seems to fall at the same heel of xmas so it too is an automatic time off. No such luck with the only two religious holidays of the Islamic calendar.

Try to travel a little and I am my own boss!

all the best
Point being that the "we" in your above post "we have all Jewish holidays off" is NOT the USA but New York. So, is your other statement, "Muslims outnumber Jews" still true when speaking just of New York?

If you had gotten out more you would have realized that what is true for New York isn't necessarily true for the entire country. We don't all celebrate something just because New York does. But there are in fact all sorts of additional holidays that people in different certain parts of the country get as holidays that they don't in other parts of the country. In Illinois Lincoln's birthday is often taken off. But not in Virginia, there they celebrate Robert E. Lee. Because of its large ethnic Polish population, Chicago gets Casimir Pulaski day off. I know of a small community with a large Swedish population that takes the King of Sweden's birthday as a holiday. And in greater Detroit area a lot of businesses do close for the end of Ramadan.

Finally, if you're your own boss, then no one is forcing you to take off Jewish holidays and no one is telling you not to take of Islamic ones.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-08-2010, 05:57 AM
Originally Posted by titus
No, they are not, but mainly because of the small percentage of the population that is Muslim.
For a contrast:
the buddhists population in Indonesia is less than 1%,
the muslims population in France is between 5-10%

while the buddhists enjoy so much of tolerance, status and other perks in Indonesia, the muslims in France cannot even wear the dress prescribed by their religion.


I can quote you some of the laws, though, from here in the US:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer --

(1) To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) To limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.


......

Once the employee advises the employer of the sincerely held religious belief, the burden shifts to the employer to accommodate that belief. The employee should suggest accommodation alternatives. In the example of working on the Sabbath or Sunday noted above, the employee can offer to work on an alternative day or suggest other employees who may work the Sabbath or Sunday shift.

The employer must undertake efforts to accommodate the employee's religious belief. An employer cannot establish a zero tolerance policy against accommodating religious belief and practice. The employer must take seriously its obligation to accommodate the belief.

If you tell your employer that you are Muslim when you are hired then he is required by law to accommodate your religious beliefs, including prayer and holidays. So while Eid is not a national holiday all Muslims may have that day off, as well as Fridays if they wish.

This is pretty standard.

So, employers in the US must provide prayer rooms for muslims and must allow muslims to pray daily prayers (5 times a day) at their workplace?
and friday off too?
I'd like to see that.
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-08-2010, 07:29 AM
Okay this thread is going off topic :/
If you don't have anything to say relating to Palestine/Gaza then dont post :O
Reply

جوري
10-08-2010, 10:12 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Point being that the "we" in your above post "we have all Jewish holidays off" is NOT the USA but New York. So, is your other statement, "Muslims outnumber Jews" still true when speaking just of New York?

If you had gotten out more you would have realized that what is true for New York isn't necessarily true for the entire country. We don't all celebrate something just because New York does. But there are in fact all sorts of additional holidays that people in different certain parts of the country get as holidays that they don't in other parts of the country. In Illinois Lincoln's birthday is often taken off. But not in Virginia, there they celebrate Robert E. Lee. Because of its large ethnic Polish population, Chicago gets Casimir Pulaski day off. I know of a small community with a large Swedish population that takes the King of Sweden's birthday as a holiday. And in greater Detroit area a lot of businesses do close for the end of Ramadan.

Finally, if you're your own boss, then no one is forcing you to take off Jewish holidays and no one is telling you not to take of Islamic ones.
I don't know what small hick town you are from but most metropolitan cities I have visited in the U.S observe them!

and yes Muslims outnumber Jews period.. a bit of common sense needs to be used here, any small percentage of Muslims is greater than any small percentage of Jews in any country!



I am not sure why you find common sense daunting?
Thus, I don't need all the rest of the colorful details. If two allegedly Abrahamic religions get their holidays off as national holidays, then the third should too and the fact that Muslims are that much more, would make it hypocritical at best to celebrate either christian holidays or Jewish ones while neglecting Islamic holidays given that it is basically two days out of the entire year!

all the best
Reply

Zafran
10-08-2010, 04:03 PM
Originally Posted by titus
Naidamar, I don't recall ever having said anything negative about Indonesia when speaking about intolerance. I won't be rude and call you names or ask you to shut your trap as you did to me, but I would ask that you actually read my posts before getting upset and responding with posts that have nothing to do with what I posted.



Using that logic then I guess that black people were never treated poorly in the United States, nor were the Native Americans since there are so many still here, nor are the Palestinians today treated poorly.



The longevity of a group in an area is not the prime factor in how the government treats them. Nor is it in any way relevant to how they are treated currently, or 500 or 1000 years ago.
I like the way your moving away from europe now and to the US which is based on the idea of tolerance - europe has never been tolerant of minorities period until the last 50 to 100 years. So all your arguments preety much fall short. It is a new thing for europe thats why most americans (i repeat) ran away from europe in the first place.

Ofcourse it is - You couldnt be a muslim in the UK in the 19th century as it was against the law - However you could still exist as a christian in Egypt - a Jew in Iran or Persia and a Hindu in Mughal india. We're not talking about having a great life or being treated well (whatever that can mean) but simply the idea of being allowed to live in a place.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-08-2010, 04:03 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
and yes Muslims outnumber Jews period.. a bit of common sense needs to be used here, any small percentage of Muslims is greater than any small percentage of Jews in any country!
But the case you cite of Jewish holidays being recognized and Muslims one's not recognized is not something that is occuring throughout the country. It is occuring where you live. So, common sense would say that you have no point in comparing the size of the two populations nationwide.

What is the relationship between their respective local populations?

New York County Christian 702,459 Jewish 314,500 Muslim 37,078
Bronx County Christian 651,519 Jewish 83,700 Muslim 12,164
Queens County Christian 772,045 Jewish 238,000 Muslim 52,038
Kings County Christian 1,111,396 Jewish 379,000 Muslim 57,897
Richmond County Christian 290,246 Jewish 33,700 Muslim 8,082
Nassau County Christian 792,148 Jewish 207,700 Muslim 11,164

Entire NYC Metro area (including NJ & CT) Christian 9,213,262 Jewish 1,932,400 Muslim 289,358

New York State Christian 9,492,859 Jewish 1,653,870 Muslim 223,968


(source: Religious Congregations & Membership - Denominational Groupings, published by Church of the Nazarene Research Center, data represents populations in the year 2000.)



You probably have a point that Muslims should be able to take off their holidays. But your argument is that Jews are getting favored when they have less population. That simply isn't true in the areas where you have identified this favoring to have occurred.

BTW, Christians are the dominant religion in the USA, we have three major religious holidays -- Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost -- yet you will note that Christmas is the only federally recognized holiday.


But again, your biggest problem is that you don't argue from facts:
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
and yes Muslims outnumber Jews period
That is evidently your opinion. Now for the facts: Jews outnumber Muslims in the USA.
Jews 2,680,000 (1.2% of total population) Muslims 1,349,000 (0.6% of total population)

source: American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS 2008)
Reply

جوري
10-08-2010, 04:32 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
But the case you cite of Jewish holidays being recognized and Muslims one's not recognized is not something that is occuring throughout the country. It is occuring where you live. So, common sense would say that you have no point in comparing the size of the two populations nationwide.

What is the relationship between their respective local populations?

New York County Christian 702,459 Jewish 314,500 Muslim 37,078
Bronx County Christian 651,519 Jewish 83,700 Muslim 12,164
Queens County Christian 772,045 Jewish 238,000 Muslim 52,038
Kings County Christian 1,111,396 Jewish 379,000 Muslim 57,897
Richmond County Christian 290,246 Jewish 33,700 Muslim 8,082
Nassau County Christian 792,148 Jewish 207,700 Muslim 11,164

Entire NYC Metro area (including NJ & CT) Christian 9,213,262 Jewish 1,932,400 Muslim 289,358

New York State Christian 9,492,859 Jewish 1,653,870 Muslim 223,968


(source: Religious Congregations & Membership - Denominational Groupings, published by Church of the Nazarene Research Center, data represents populations in the year 2000.)



You probably have a point that Muslims should be able to take off their holidays. But your argument is that Jews are getting favored when they have less population. That simply isn't true in the areas where you have identified this favoring to have occurred.

BTW, Christians are the dominant religion in the USA, we have three major religious holidays -- Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost -- yet you will note that Christmas is the only federally recognized holiday.


But again, your biggest problem is that you don't argue from facts:


That is evidently your opinion. Now for the facts: Jews outnumber Muslims in the USA.
Jews 2,680,000 (1.2% of total population) Muslims 1,349,000 (0.6% of total population)

source: American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS 2008)
I don't think you quite know how statistics and epidemiology works-- rather than giving you a lesson where I haven't the time nor the interest, let's have an analogy.
You google as you so handily like to demonstrate and come up with a neat statistic that there are only 800 cases of TB in the U.S and you boast of how the rudy made it almost illegal to have TB, that you have to be in solitary confinement and getting treatment against your will etc. treat anyone even if not sick to save everyone as compared to say a third world country. Now, how does the govt. or the CDC find out about those cases of TB, you know it is a reportable disease.. do they knock door to door and screen everyone? do people with TB also have insurance and thus go and seek treatment knowing what it entails? Does everyone have insurance? is everyone in the country legal? is everyone in the country screened? what about those who have latent TB and no symptoms?
Well a smart fellow like you, only goes by the reported cases and that is pretty much how you like to make your point any point (I have no idea why abstract concepts are hard for you to grasp) so please allow me to be the first to burst that bubble by letting you know, that NOT EVERY CASE OF TB is reported nor found out about. In fact it is only mandatory to get TB testing for those who are HIV pts. prison populations, health-care workers. and anyone has the right to go against medical recommendation. In other words if you are a known TB you will have to by law receive treatment. but that same law also protects you from having a PPD test if you have no desire to have one done!
Try to carry that thought now to the reported Muslim population, take into account the 20,000 that convert yearly, as compared to say Judaism who takes no converts and evolve it in your mind to reflect the world population and how much of that population is of a particular creed. You'll find out, whether or not you use that abstract thought that you already entered with your handy 'american survey' website with a few confounders!

have a wonderful day =)
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-08-2010, 04:58 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

Try to carry that thought now to the reported Muslim population, take into account the 20,000 that convert yearly, as compared to say Judaism who takes no converts and evolve it in your mind to reflect the world population and how much of that population is of a particular creed. You'll find out, whether or not you use that abstract thought that you already entered with your handy 'american survey' website with a few confounders!

have a wonderful day =)
So, you are asserting that Muslims would not identify themselves as Muslims in these surveys, but that other groups would self-identify, or that Muslims are somehow more likely to be missed and not counted than other groups. Thus you doubt the integrity of the survey because it disagrees with your pre-formed conclusion. Then you probably doubt that they report Islam to have more than doubled in the last 20 years, as well.

In a society, like the US, that governs itself by the population voting or otherwise making its collective voice known, if Muslims really are hiding their presence and thus reducing their apparent numbers below reality, then your complaint about Jews being favored over Muslim when there are more Muslims is going to repeatedly fall on deaf ears until the true numbers of Muslims are more than just and assertion but substantiated by census.


BTW, I was an economics major, I know very well how statistics work. Your objection is not to the statistics themselves, but the validity of the manner in which the sampling was done. If Muslims are under reported, exactly whose fault is that?
Muslim advocacy groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations routinely cite a span of 6 million to 8 million people in describing the size of Islam in America.
That would be between 2 percent and 3 percent of the U.S. population and make Muslims greater in number than Mormons or Jews.

(source: Islamic Society of North America)
That's a huge difference between these asserted numbers and even the largest numbers report by any group who has surveyed religious populations in America. It's unlikely that every group is utilizing that bad of methodology. So, either the numbers really aren't there, or people that mosques are counting as Muslims are reporting their religious affliation differently to surveyors. Either way, this would explain why Muslims don't yet have recognition of Islamic holidays by the population as a whole. Personally, I actually wish there was more recognition. I couldn't find a card for Ramadan or Eid this year even after checking at more than half a doxen card shops.


The good news is that "Muslim organizations have taken it upon themselves to start an ambitious new census: an attempt to account for every mosque and Muslim in America."
Reply

جوري
10-08-2010, 05:47 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
So, you are asserting that Muslims would not identify themselves as Muslims in these surveys, but that other groups would self-identify, or that Muslims are somehow more likely to be missed and not counted than other groups. Thus you doubt the integrity of the survey because it disagrees with your pre-formed conclusion. Then you probably doubt that they report Islam to have more than doubled in the last 20 years, as well.
That is not at all what I am saying. I am asking for the methodology of the headcount of the site you so graciously shared!
In a society, like the US, that governs itself by the population voting or otherwise making its collective voice known, if Muslims really are hiding their presence and thus reducing their apparent numbers below reality, then your complaint about Jews being favored over Muslim when there are more Muslims is going to repeatedly fall on deaf ears until the true numbers of Muslims are more than just and assertion but substantiated by census.
Here is one method that fails to give you an adequate headcount. The majority of observant Muslims don't vote!

BTW, I was an economics major, I know very well how statistics work. Your objection is not to the statistics themselves, but the validity of the manner in which the sampling was done. If Muslims are under reported, exactly whose fault is that?
Yours I believe-- since you are either being dishonest in the reporting but mum at best to the confounders until pointed out or boast about accolades you don't actually possess!
That's a huge difference between these asserted numbers and even the largest numbers report by any group who has surveyed religious populations in America. It's unlikely that every group is utilizing that bad of methodology. So, either the numbers really aren't there, or people that mosques are counting as Muslims are reporting their religious affliation differently to surveyors. Either way, this would explain why Muslims don't yet have recognition of Islamic holidays by the population as a whole. Personally, I actually wish there was more recognition. I couldn't find a card for Ramadan or Eid this year even after checking at more than half a doxen card shops.
You said above one of the methods of identifying religious affiliations is voting, that is already out. Try to find other avenues and we'll see why there is no reflection to the actual numbers there either

The good news is that "Muslim organizations have taken it upon themselves to start an ambitious new census: an attempt to account for every mosque and Muslim in America."
Even with that bit of good news, how many Muslims actually attend mosques? I don't and haven't and I am sure I am not alone as there is no obligation for me to go!

all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-08-2010, 10:51 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
You said above one of the methods of identifying religious affiliations is voting,
No, I did not. Read again.
Reply

جوري
10-08-2010, 11:29 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
No, I did not. Read again.
I'll try to approach all your posts with your same linear style!

all the best
Reply

titus
10-11-2010, 04:24 AM
I'll try to approach all your posts with your same linear style!
You should try and understand them also, or maybe even admit when you were mistaken in instead of trying to deflect.

While you are asking for the methodology for his numbers maybe you can explain CAIR's numbers, which are immensely higher than any other scientific poll I have ever seen.

And going back to your TB analogy, you are correct that not every case of TB is reported. Nor is every case of the flu. We can, though, by looking at the reported cases give an extremely educated guess as to which is more prevalent.

Even with that bit of good news, how many Muslims actually attend mosques? I don't and haven't and I am sure I am not alone as there is no obligation for me to go!
Again, read the post. He mentioned counting every mosque and Muslim. Not every Muslim that goes to mosque.

I think the term "straw man" is used too often here, but your post is a great example of it. You keep arguing about things that he did not even say.
Reply

جوري
10-11-2010, 05:11 AM
Originally Posted by titus
You should try and understand them also, or maybe even admit when you were mistaken in instead of trying to deflect.

While you are asking for the methodology for his numbers maybe you can explain CAIR's numbers, which are immensely higher than any other scientific poll I have ever seen.

And going back to your TB analogy, you are correct that not every case of TB is reported. Nor is every case of the flu. We can, though, by looking at the reported cases give an extremely educated guess as to which is more prevalent.
Why should I strain to accommodate tortured attempts at common sense? Clearly you have missed the bigger picture when coming to the rescue. I believe it is presented to you in pie form.. and if we are to divide up TB'S and Flu's as Jews vs. Muslims (reported or not) we outnumber them by hundreds of millions.. Perhaps you should have a paradigm shift before you present us with faulty stats?

Again, read the post. He mentioned counting every mosque and Muslim. Not every Muslim that goes to mosque.
This changes things how?
I think the term "straw man" is used too often here, but your post is a great example of it. You keep arguing about things that he did not even say.
Coming from you, and reflecting on your faulty analogies above, I'll surely take that with a hearty guffaw and a grain of salt.. BTW, don't you want to go save the day for some other under-dog whose logic or lack thereof is failing somewhere else on this forum?

all the best as usual
Reply

titus
10-11-2010, 05:24 AM
we outnumber them by hundreds of millions.
He specifically refers to the population in the US, not the world. Maybe you missed that part, or forgot.

This changes things how?
If you cannot answer that question then I can fully understand why are having difficulty with the other posts.

BTW, don't you want to go save the day for some other under-dog whose logic or lack thereof is failing somewhere else on this forum?
There is a flaw in logic on this thread, but not with Grace Seeker. Your attempt to show a flaw in his numbers did just the opposite.
Reply

Zafran
10-11-2010, 05:33 AM
Nobody actually knows how many muslims there are in the US anyway - Grace seeker did give bias stats.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_numb.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religio...w-census_N.htm
Reply

titus
10-11-2010, 06:06 AM
The first link gives some known estimate. Most of the higher numbers are from Muslim, not unbiased, sources.

Grace Seekers link actually provided concrete numbers at least. If anything I would say that his numbers were more unbiased since they were derived scientifically and not by people guessing "based on personal experience in the Muslim community" or other extrapolations based on non-scientific means. If the actual numbers are not accurate the ratios, at least, are probably close.

The second link provides no insight that I could see on Muslim numbers in the US.

Another issue, when counting Muslims, is whether or not to count non-practicing Muslims or those who have left the religion. Some of the higher population estimates include family members of Muslim families that no longer consider themselves Muslim and look at Islam as more of a cultural thing than a religious one. The same issue also occurs when trying to count Jews in the United States as many who are called Jewish do not actually practice the religion.
Reply

جوري
10-11-2010, 01:40 PM
If you desire to introduce biases then back them up. I don't go at face value, and know you to desire saving face when the odds and common sense are stacked up against you..
if you want to use practicing vs. non-practicing, then you'd be better off counting the annual one percent decrease in Christianity, the state of inertia in Judaism vs. the 20,000 plus conversions to Islam yearly..

come and post the numbers you've crunched, once your piece is accepted as a national consensus

all the best
Reply

titus
10-11-2010, 02:14 PM
I don't go at face value, and know you to desire saving face when the odds and common sense are stacked up against you..
You are more than welcome to provide "facts" that refute anything I have said.

As for me introducing bias, if you read carefully I specifically said that same bias applies to Jews and Christians.
hen you'd be better off counting the annual one percent decrease in Christianity, the state of inertia in Judaism vs. the 20,000 plus conversions to Islam yearly..
If we wanted to change the subject to the populations of those religions in the future then yes. In this discussion we are concerned with the present day.
Reply

جوري
10-11-2010, 02:19 PM
Originally Posted by titus
You are more than welcome to provide "facts" that refute anything I have said.
What is there to refute? your opinion?
Anyone should be able to look at the latest chart of world religions and come up with a very educated conclusion!
As for me introducing bias, if you read carefully I specifically said that same bias applies to Jews and Christians.
The point of introducing bias isn't to end up with the original faulty conclusion but to re-work it!

If we wanted to change the subject to the populations of those religions in the future then yes. In this discussion we are concerned with the present day.
These are the stats as of current day. Although I believe the number to be actually less than thought, a few millions Jews don't over number more than a billion and a half Muslims in any given population not even 'Israel'

all the best
Reply

Athrun66
10-11-2010, 02:23 PM
huh ?
The Four Great Powers [Britain, France, Italy and the United States] are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, and future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land. In my opinion that is right.
Arthur James Balfour

how do you even argue the right of any Israeli living their ? , the land belongs to the Palestinians the choice of peace or war is only theirs to make and any talk about blame or fault went out of the window when you threw hundred of thousands of indigenous people out of their homeland to suite your own purposes and agenda .
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-11-2010, 03:42 PM
Originally Posted by titus
The first link gives some known estimate. Most of the higher numbers are from Muslim, not unbiased, sources.

Grace Seekers link actually provided concrete numbers at least. If anything I would say that his numbers were more unbiased since they were derived scientifically and not by people guessing "based on personal experience in the Muslim community" or other extrapolations based on non-scientific means. If the actual numbers are not accurate the ratios, at least, are probably close.

The second link provides no insight that I could see on Muslim numbers in the US.

Another issue, when counting Muslims, is whether or not to count non-practicing Muslims or those who have left the religion. Some of the higher population estimates include family members of Muslim families that no longer consider themselves Muslim and look at Islam as more of a cultural thing than a religious one. The same issue also occurs when trying to count Jews in the United States as many who are called Jewish do not actually practice the religion.
I have no problem with someone accusing the numbers I reported as being biased. I doubt there was any bias in attempting to intentionally under or over report any group's figures. But all statistical analysis has within it the inherant biases of the researcher with regard to his sampling methodologies. And when denominations, institutions or even individuals are asked to self-report there is certainly room for those who are reporting to inject their own personal bias into the figures they give to researchers. As the USA Today artilce says:
every tally is to some degree an estimate based on institutional or individual reporting. And every way of counting and determining whom should be counted has its critics. There is no agreement among or even within denominations on who is an authentic "member," says David Roozen, director of the Hartford (Conn.) Institute for Religious Research.

One of the reports I used utilized denominational reports, that critique is given above. The other report I used I understand utilized phone calling. In the past, one objection to this sampling procedure was that it missed impoverished people without telephones. Today one might object to it missing young adults who may have no landline, but only a cell phone. Of course number generators will generator all random numbers, including cell phones.

But regardless which set of figures one uses, we are still left with the same critique of The Vale's Lily's original complaint, that Muslims outnumber Jews and yet Jews get holidays that Muslims don't. She offers nothing to substantiate that point of view. The holidays she complains about are locally regulated, not federal. So, the numbers that need to be compared are not world figures or even national figures -- such a process would be valid only if there was an even distribution of religions globally and I hope no one here is so foolish as to make that claim. So, what are the numbers in the community where these decisions were made. Unless she can provide something other than what has been found thus far, using all the numbers that have been reported from either Zafran, Lily, or myself, even the most conservative estimates of the Jewish population and the most liberal estimates of the Muslim population have there being more Jews than Muslims in New York.

The other thing that appears to have been overlooked in what I said, is that this doesn't minimize the appropriateness of seeking an officially recognized Muslim holiday. And the suggestion that if Muslims wish to seek that recognition, they need to get counted and make their voice heard in the polls by voting and by not hiding their real numbers from those who take various surveys and census reports. For that is how things such as she wishes are brought about in this society.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-11-2010, 03:50 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Anyone should be able to look at the latest chart of world religions and come up with a very educated conclusion!
However, this does not have anything to do with the relative populations in your local area. When discussing decisions of a local nature, which holidays are or are not celebrated, beyond the list of federally recongized holidays (that includes no Jewish or Muslim holidays and only 1 Christian holiday) that apply only to federal employees, the practice of people getting time off for certain holidays is something determined on a local level. Hence your complaint about Jews getting holidays off that Muslims don't has nothing to do with world-wide population and needs to be understood in the context of local populations. I suggest that Jews significantly outnumber Muslims among your local population. You, yourself, have complained on this forum in the past about being isolated and having little contact with Muslims where you live.
Reply

جوري
10-11-2010, 04:04 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
However, this does not have anything to do with the relative populations in your local area. When discussing decisions of a local nature, which holidays are or are not celebrated, beyond the list of federally recongized holidays (that includes no Jewish or Muslim holidays and only 1 Christian holiday) that apply only to federal employees, the practice of people getting time off for certain holidays is something determined on a local level. Hence your complaint about Jews getting holidays off that Muslims don't has nothing to do with world-wide population and needs to be understood in the context of local populations. I suggest that Jews significantly outnumber Muslims among your local population. You, yourself, have complained on this forum in the past about being isolated and having little contact with Muslims where you live.
What you speak and what occurs in reality are obviously two different things-- And it isn't particularly surprising given the set of beliefs you subscribe to.
Once you go about appropriately surveying populations to reflect true numbers can you come and tinkle your all too frequent pearls.

all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-11-2010, 04:08 PM
Originally Posted by Athrun66
any talk about blame or fault went out of the window when you threw hundred of thousands of indigenous people out of their homeland to suite your own purposes and agenda .
I agree. The biggest part of the problem has to do with displacing people who see the land as their rightful home. But that is not as simple of a problem to resolve as just turning it back to the "rightful" owners. For exactly how does one today determine that right? Is was not right for the land to be forcably taken from Palestinian owners and given to Jews immigrating to the new state of Israel. Does that make it right to take it from Jewish owners today to return the land to the grandchildren of those who had the land stolen from them 50-60 years ago? And if one decides that it is right to go back generations, then exactly how many generations? Perhaps we should give the land back not to Palestinians or to Jews, but to Philistine, Canaanites, or Amorites? Now, some Palestinians can probably trace their linage back to one of these groups, but today many Palestinians are specifically designated as Palestinian Arabs, and if they are Arabs, it would follow that their original lands are not in Palestine, but Arabia.

So, I don't think that a simple "Give it back." solution exists. Using that argument is what got us in the predicament we are in today. Continuing to use it means that we can be guaranteed to have people continuing to fight about who qualifies as "indigenous" and disagreeing over to whom it actually "originally" belonged for it to be given back to.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-11-2010, 04:10 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

What you speak and what occurs in reality are obviously two different things-- And it isn't particularly surprising given the set of beliefs you subscribe to.
Once you go about appropriately surveying populations to reflect true numbers can you come and tinkle your all too frequent pearls.

all the best
If you've got better numbers, let's see them. It's time to put up or shut up.
Reply

جوري
10-11-2010, 04:14 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
If you've got better numbers, let's see them. It's time to put up or shut up.
google number of adherents to world religions as I have done previously (if that particular pie chart isn't to your liking) and try to discern some of the more elaborate examples given (like my previous with TB) and then try to stretch that brain of yours to accommodate more than what has been indoctrinated into it.. and then do pretty please shut up since I don't enjoy repeating myself.

all the best
Reply

Athrun66
10-11-2010, 04:47 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I agree. The biggest part of the problem has to do with displacing people who see the land as their rightful home. But that is not as simple of a problem to resolve as just turning it back to the "rightful" owners. For exactly how does one today determine that right? Is was not right for the land to be forcably taken from Palestinian owners and given to Jews immigrating to the new state of Israel. Does that make it right to take it from Jewish owners today to return the land to the grandchildren of those who had the land stolen from them 50-60 years ago? And if one decides that it is right to go back generations, then exactly how many generations? Perhaps we should give the land back not to Palestinians or to Jews, but to Philistine, Canaanites, or Amorites? Now, some Palestinians can probably trace their linage back to one of these groups, but today many Palestinians are specifically designated as Palestinian Arabs, and if they are Arabs, it would follow that their original lands are not in Palestine, but Arabia.

So, I don't think that a simple "Give it back." solution exists. Using that argument is what got us in the predicament we are in today. Continuing to use it means that we can be guaranteed to have people continuing to fight about who qualifies as "indigenous" and disagreeing over to whom it actually "originally" belonged for it to be given back to.
then it isn't a peace deal it is simply ATTEMPTING to correct an abhorring violation , give them their lands back [ borders of 1948 ] allow the refuges back , and be grateful they allow Israelis to live on THEIR land .
also saying how far we go back you must be joking that nation [ if you can call it that ] was founded 62 years ago , those displaced could be still alive today , two wrongs don't make it right . the European jews have no right to even be here , like i said be grateful the Palestinians would be generous enough to allow those that wronged them to have that much .
the Palestinians are paying for a crime committed by the nations of the west , who still backup this injustice and speak of freedom and justice while labeling us as savages [ well even if we are savages we still classify as humans and this is our home]
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-11-2010, 05:18 PM
Originally Posted by Athrun66
the Palestinians are paying for a crime committed by the nations of the west , who still backup this injustice and speak of freedom and justice while labeling us as savages [well even if we are savages we still classify as humans and this is our home]
Well, Palestians aren't savages. But they are suffering for something that was forced upon them. That is something that does need to be addressed. I think that is why you see growing support in the international community for not just a "peace" solution that doesn't deal with the issues Palestinians raise, but one that includes Palestinians in the solution.

Originally Posted by Athrun66
that nation [Israel] was founded 62 years ago , those displaced could be still alive today , two wrongs don't make it right.
I agree two wrongs don't make it right. Nor would three wrongs. What I see being discussed when one uses "give it back" as an answer is to continue stacking up one injustice on top of another.


the European jews have no right to even be here , like i said be grateful the Palestinians would be generous enough to allow those that wronged them to have that much
Why don't the European Jews have a right to be there? They may have become Europeanized over time, but they haven't always been from Europe. They are a product of a diaspora that goes back 2 millenia. Is the reason that they don't have a right to the land because they weren't born on it? Or do you have another reason? How are the rights of Palestinians born on the East Bank any different than those of Jews born in Europe? I understand that there is a difference between 62 years and 2000 years, but is that all there is to the argument which prefers the rights of one group over the other?


Originally Posted by Athrun66
allow the refuges back , and be grateful they allow Israelis to live on THEIR land
I have no problem with that as the intended goal. I can see all sorts of problems in regard to how that would be executed, but the big one is, do you think that the two groups could ever work out a way to live together? Presently Israel uses their majority power to disenfranchise everyone who stands in their way. I know of cases of churches that have been claimed by the state as "abandoned" simply because they were left unattended for as little as 48 hours. That is how Israel plays when it has power. What Palestinian would accept that? And should the Palestinians hold the greater political power, would they be willing to forgoe using it as a weapon by which they were to seek reprisals for the wrongs suffered by them over the last 62 years?

Peace is going to involve both parties taking the approach Nelson Mandela did in South Africa and being more concerned about how to go forward than looking back at the past.
Reply

Athrun66
10-11-2010, 05:55 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Why don't the European Jews have a right to be there? They may have become Europeanized over time, but they haven't always been from Europe. They are a product of a diaspora that goes back 2 millenia. Is the reason that they don't have a right to the land because they weren't born on it? Or do you have another reason? How are the rights of Palestinians born on the East Bank any different than those of Jews born in Europe? I understand that there is a difference between 62 years and 2000 years, but is that all there is to the argument which prefers the rights of one group over the other?
that doesn't make much sense why would the right of a European born Jew who came to a land illegally that he doesn't own kicked out the indigenous natives and settled down be respected in the first place?
if an illegal immigrant came to your home and forced you out would you respect his rights and allow him he to stay , if you do then it is your choice but to have it forced upon you is unjust and cruel.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-11-2010, 06:40 PM
Originally Posted by Athrun66
that doesn't make much sense why would the right of a European born Jew who came to a land illegally that he doesn't own kicked out the indigenous natives and settled down be respected in the first place?
if an illegal immigrant came to your home and forced you out would you respect his rights and allow him he to stay , if you do then it is your choice but to have it forced upon you is unjust and cruel.
The majority of those who live in Israel today are descendants of those immigrants, not the immigrants themselves. Also majority of those who wish to "return" to their Palestinians homes were not born there, but outside of Palestine. And beyond that, both groups of peoples have roots that go back well beyond the present and try to make ancient claims on the land, yet even then both group is truly indigenous, but migrated there from elsewhere.
Reply

Athrun66
10-11-2010, 06:45 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
The majority of those who live in Israel today are descendants of those immigrants, not the immigrants themselves. Also majority of those who wish to "return" to their Palestinians homes were not born there, but outside of Palestine. And beyond that, both groups of peoples have roots that go back well beyond the present and try to make ancient claims on the land, yet even then both group is truly indigenous, but migrated there from elsewhere.
notice i said European born
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-11-2010, 06:50 PM
Originally Posted by Athrun66
notice i said European born
Well, if invited there by those who are in power, should they not go?

Again, I'm not arguing that the situation is right. But I don't think the "give it back" response is going to be the solution either. The claims of one group born outside of Palestine are any more meritorious than another group born outside of Palestine, given that both groups try to establish their claim based on having "first dibs" by claiming to be the "indigenous" population. That's why I pointed out that such is not really true of either Jews nor Palestinians unless we put some sort of limit to how far one is willing to go back in time to fix what that term means.
Reply

Athrun66
10-11-2010, 07:04 PM
again you are saying that the son of a man fleeing for his life from the Israeli war machine in 1967 right to return is equal to someone from Russia claiming that in his holy book his ancestor was thrown out 2000 years ago?
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-11-2010, 07:09 PM
Originally Posted by Athrun66
again you are saying that the son of a man fleeing for his life from the Israeli war machine in 1967 right to return is equal to someone from Russia claiming that in his holy book his ancestor was thrown out 2000 years ago?
I'm not saying that it is, I'm asking why they are not the same?

Is there something other than the passage of time that makes one more right than the other?
Reply

Athrun66
10-11-2010, 07:12 PM
well for one proof , most European jews aren't from middle eastern decent
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-11-2010, 07:17 PM
Originally Posted by Athrun66
well for one proof , most European jews aren't from middle eastern decent
So, if a Jew could somehow prove middle eastern descent, then what more would you want?
Reply

Athrun66
10-11-2010, 07:25 PM
its not about proving your ancestry [ i phrased that wrong ] middle eastern Jews were always apart of our society and they lived along side Muslims and Christians , it wasn't until the genocide committed by the nations of Europe that this whole ordeal started ,i'm not saying throw every non Muslim out [ even though that was exactly what IDF did and no one objected ].
but you must allow every Palestinian that was thrown out and there descendants back , you would show mercy to the ones who committed the crime and their children but not the victims?
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-11-2010, 07:49 PM
No, if I were king of the universe, I would open up the borders to Israel so that anyone who wanted to live there could. And I would stop Israel's continued encroachment on other people's lands by means of the settlements they continue to build. But I don't think that this solves the problem. In return to the land are those descendants of people who were forced off their land able to reclaim property rights as well? What if their property has changed in value? Do they get reparations if it has gone down, do they pay if it has gone up? Do people who have themselves now lived on the land for 3, perhaps 4, generations have any rights that accru to them?


Originally Posted by Athrun66
you must allow every Palestinian that was thrown out and there descendants back , you would show mercy to the ones who committed the crime and their children but not the victims?
And if one really believes this argument, then you are saying no more than what those Jews who demanded to be able to immigrate to Palestine were saying back in 1947 -- they saw themselves as the descendents of Jews who had suffered genocidal crimes not just from Hitler, but over centuries at the hands of Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans that eventually drove them from their ancesteral lands. And look what a mess saying YES to that got us all into.

It was wrong to force the Jews from the land millenia ago. It was wrong to force the Palestinians from the land just to make room for some Jews in 1948. It was wrong for the Jews to enact laws that were discriminatory against Palestinians who remained in the land. And it is wrong for Israel to prohibit Palestinians from returning now. But it would also be wrong to drive out Jews who presently live on the land in order to make room for Palestinians who wish to return. As you've already said, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

So, there has be an answer that is more nuanced than just "give back the land". For if we're just using the argument of the right of the original indigenous population, I'm giving it to neither Palestinians nor Jews, but to Canaanites.
Reply

Athrun66
10-11-2010, 08:17 PM
so it is wrong to allow all the Palestinians that were evicted back in so that the jews that have no actual proof of their claim other than i'm Jewish my ancestor 2000 years ago lived here can live in a nice and spacious environment ?
also i have no knowledge of the bible who are the descendants of the Canaanites ?
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-11-2010, 08:51 PM
Originally Posted by Athrun66
so it is wrong to allow all the Palestinians that were evicted back in so that the jews that have no actual proof of their claim other than i'm Jewish my ancestor 2000 years ago lived here can live in a nice and spacious environment ?
No. That is not what I am saying. Remember I said that Israel needs to open up it borders and let Palestinians return.

What is wrong is to continue to evict one group in favor of another. Somehow everyone must learn to share the land.

also i have no knowledge of the bible who are the descendants of the Canaanites ?
I don't know. I suspect that it is largely those Palestinians who are not of Arab descent but of Phoenician or Syrian descent.
Reply

Zenya_Yousif
10-16-2010, 03:21 AM
Fast for world peace on Friday, October 22, 2010! AN OUTCRY FOR UMMAH!

Alhumdullilah its Muslim Awareness Week! so everyone please i beq u fast this cominq Friday for World Peace && for all our brothers && sisters sufferinq in the middle east. People getting killed, women getting rape && Shot its been so horrible please they are in need more than ever! our own brothers and sisters getting raped, tortured dying not only in the middle east but the suffering is going worldwide. Lets take a moment put aside our problems and pray for all our companions, im qoinq around promotinq this idea, so please for Allah subhana wata-ala for our companions in need fast this Friday (October 22,2010)! let me know if u join in please! spread the word tell all your muslim people, family, friends, etc etc.!
Reply

nousername
10-16-2010, 03:36 AM
As long as the Israelis continue to be land grabbers by continuing to build ILLEGAL settlements, their is virtually no chance for peace
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-16-2010, 05:39 PM
In my opinion, both the jews and muslims are equally accountable for the situation and need to stop blaming the other and look at themselves for a change. Until that happens, I cannot envisage peace in that region. The middle east has been a deeply troubled region since the ancient times of The Old Testament.
Reply

Seeker1066
10-16-2010, 08:29 PM
Yes that pretty well sums it up. Israel isn't after peace anyway.
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-16-2010, 09:51 PM
And neither is Palestine, by the sounds of it.
Reply

Junon
10-16-2010, 10:13 PM
Salaam

In my opinion, both the jews and muslims are equally accountable for the situation and need to stop blaming the other and look at themselves for a change. Until that happens, I cannot envisage peace in that region. The middle east has been a deeply troubled region since the ancient times of The Old Testament.
Shallow, very shallow analysis, a cursory examination of the history would disabuse you of this statement

To sum up briefly:

US+Israel have blocked all attempts at a diplomatic settlement for the past 30 years.

The main reason for continued interest in the middle east is its huge energy reserves. The US wants to control it. If the region had no oil, the people who run the US would find it as interesting as the north pole.
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-16-2010, 10:27 PM
Only shallow in your estimation because I have not elucidated. What I say is true. In brief, It takes two to tango. There are terrorists on either side. I agree that the US is not helping things by virtue of it's interference but as I say, it has always been a troubled region and those there would have found an excuse to cause trouble with each other, whether or not the US had a vested interest.
Reply

Junon
10-16-2010, 10:58 PM
Salaam

Only shallow in your estimation because I have not elucidated. What I say is true. In brief, It takes two to tango. There are terrorists on either side. I agree that the US is not helping things by virtue of it's interference but as I say, it has always been a troubled region and those there would have found an excuse to cause trouble with each other, whether or not the US had a vested interest.
Obfuscation ontop of shallowness.. This whole paragraph can be translated into 'Bah, cant be bothered understanding this' hardly a reasonable approach.

The most interesting aspect about this conflict is the supposed controversy that surrounds it. This, despite the fact that the (past) historical record, the (present) human rights record, and the legal diplomatic record (to solve the conflict) are remarkably uncontroversial. (Theres plenty of good material on the net)

The solutions to this conflict are straightforward, if US + Israel would only abandon their rejectionist stance, eventually a just peace can be made.
Reply

Zafran
10-17-2010, 12:26 AM
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
And neither is Palestine, by the sounds of it.
Neither is the USA looking at the veto against International concensus.

Palestine is after palestine
Reply

Zafran
10-17-2010, 12:32 AM
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
Only shallow in your estimation because I have not elucidated. What I say is true. In brief, It takes two to tango. There are terrorists on either side. I agree that the US is not helping things by virtue of it's interference but as I say, it has always been a troubled region and those there would have found an excuse to cause trouble with each other, whether or not the US had a vested interest.
give me a break - it wasnt always a troubled region - or did it realy get bad after the western Colonial conquest?
Reply

Ramadhan
10-17-2010, 03:14 AM
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
The middle east has been a deeply troubled region since the ancient times of The Old Testament.
Not true.

Sham (Syria, Jordan, Palestine) was not "troubled" during the Islamic dynasties.
the jews and christians had their rights and protected by the rulers and they lived in peace.
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-17-2010, 06:02 AM
Originally Posted by Junon
Obfuscation ontop of shallowness.. This whole paragraph can be translated into 'Bah, cant be bothered understanding this' hardly a reasonable approach.
No obfuscation. Perhaps you mean 'simplistic'? Does anyone fully understand a conflict like this, after so many years of wrangling and inbred hatred for the other side? Maybe... but as someone who is far removed from the situation, with no vested interest either way, it is easier to see both (or should I say: "all three"!) sides. That's just my point of view but others may say if you are not "in it" how can you know? I do not profess to be an expert on middle eastern affairs but I would say, even less of an 'expert' would be someone who is brought up to appreciate only one side of the argument.

We had here a similar situation with Northern Ireland. Not an exact same situation, but in light of the fact it takes a long history lesson to uncover the cause, it becomes clear there is no easy solution, so long as the protagonists are still using very old religious and political boundaries to define their grievance. As Albert Einstein said:
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

And what also becomes clear, is the part religious indoctrination plays, in producing successive generations of militants/ religious warriors, hell-bent on keeping the conflict alive; their fight as much fuelled by scripture; as it is vengeance, a lack of free movement and water supply.

Please don't talk to me about US involvement, as if I am completely unaware of it or have brushed it aside, without respect for those who have suffered unduly as a result. A rejectionist stance on the parts of the US and Israel makes me sufficiently able to sympathise with the claims of the ordinary Palestinian but when there is unmitigated and cowardly violence coming from either side, it is clear to see the solution will only come with a fresh way of thinking... and that's simply not something that's going to come out of any book, written thousands of years ago.

The solutions to this conflict are straightforward, if US + Israel would only abandon their rejectionist stance, eventually a just peace can be made.
To say it will help would be an understatement on my part... but while people still hold grudges rooted in concepts of 'holy ground' and tout ridiculous self-accreditations of being 'God's chosen ones', the embers may always glow, long after the fire is put out.
Reply

Junon
10-17-2010, 10:16 AM
Salaam

Again you display a very poor understanding of the conflict. The whole 'religion is the problem' is a popular mantra among secular types (they have to display their prejudices after all) but is little more than an attempt to cloud peoples understanding of whats going on, as many knowlegeable and perceptive commentators have noted. In fact the best work on the conflict has been done by secular people (Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein etc etc). Recently I met Ben White who has written an excellent beginners guide to the conflict.



They have considered all points of views and come to their conclusion, there are many debates on youtube between both sides, watch them and judge for yourself. A good debate for me was between Norman Finkelstein and Shlomo Ben-Ami (former Israeli diplomat, politician and historian) regarding the final status talks (1999) (Why they failed?). They were on opposite sides of the debate but on the actual facts of the conflict and the goals of either side they essentially agreed with each other. In fact Shlomo Ben-Ami said if he was a Palestinian he would not of signed it.

On the question of violence committed by Palestinains, I dont agree with it, but what do you expect? When all paths to a peaceful solution are blocked off you cant expect them to sit idly by while they are being colonised, marginalised out of existence, similiar to what happend to the native Americans, or the black people of South Africa during apartheid. They are going to resist.

Some observations

Israel is a state built on secular foundations, for decades secular jews have been running Israel and implementing its policies (on a secular basis).

During the creation of Israel, Zionists and King Abdullah of Jordan had an agreement and worked together to stop the creation of a Palestinian state. In fact Ben Guirion was engaged in a bitter war of words with the army to hold them back from taking over the West Bank to honour his secret agreement with King Abdullah.

After the war in 1949 both Syria and Egypt made peace proposals for a peace treaty with Israel, they didnt enquire about it, just rejected it out of hand.

Arab governments in 1980 - 1982 and again 2000-2002 offered a full comprehensive peace deal based on the two state solution - rejected by Israel. (Israeli statesmen have always warned that its not Arab intransigence thats the problem, its when they take the diplomatic course, that causes the immense problems).

Palestinian resistance group Hamas was initially funded by Israel.

There was never a peace process, the onset of the Oslo accords (1993) could be compared with the onset of Aparthied in South Africa (Israel accelerated its colonisation programme)

and so on and so forth.

To sum up

'Well outside of the United States, everybody knows the answer to that question. I mean for years theres been a very broad consensud in the world over the basic framework of a solution to the middle east with the exception of two countries: the United States and Israel. Its going to have to be some variety of two state settlement.
Reply

Argamemnon
10-17-2010, 12:15 PM
There can be no peace because Israel only understands the language of power and domination, not in peaceful coexistance. That's why they respect Hizbullah! They were utterly crushed in these past battles.. some great scenes here where they scream and run away like the cowards they are...

Pay attention to 1:51 (first video) and look at how these cowards are screaming. Alhamdulillah, what a joy :) That's what happens when you invade other nations. Apparently, they don't see anything wrong with it :hiding:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76ZNL_g9CfM

And here one of the greatest battles between Hizbullah heroes and Israeli terrorists in 2000 when they were UTTERLY CRUSHED and forced to run away in total disorder...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4471fWrEuT0
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-17-2010, 01:24 PM
Originally Posted by Junon
Again you display a very poor understanding of the conflict. The whole 'religion is the problem' is a popular mantra among secular types (they have to display their prejudices after all) but is little more than an attempt to cloud peoples understanding of whats going on, as many knowlegeable and perceptive commentators have noted.
I've never claimed to have a good understanding of the conflict, this is true - but the reason atheists accredit a large part of the problem to religion is, I think, both popular and well observed. As for a full understanding - well, that's always going to be out of my reach to some extent, due to my own complete inability to be influenced by scripture of any kind.

So, do I have a poor understanding because I fail to blame one or the other party? If I had blindly accepted that Israel is soley to blame, then would that mean I had a better understanding? Then what would be made of that, if I took the idea over to an all-jewish forum? I would, I suspect, be told the very same thing.

So while I might not fully understand every issue and know every twist and turn of history so far - I at least stand a decent chance of gaining a much less clouded comprehension, than someone whose understanding is going to be clouded by hatred for the opposing side.
Reply

Zafran
10-17-2010, 03:12 PM
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
I've never claimed to have a good understanding of the conflict, this is true - but the reason atheists accredit a large part of the problem to religion is, I think, both popular and well observed. As for a full understanding - well, that's always going to be out of my reach to some extent, due to my own complete inability to be influenced by scripture of any kind.

So, do I have a poor understanding because I fail to blame one or the other party? If I had blindly accepted that Israel is soley to blame, then would that mean I had a better understanding? Then what would be made of that, if I took the idea over to an all-jewish forum? I would, I suspect, be told the very same thing.

So while I might not fully understand every issue and know every twist and turn of history so far - I at least stand a decent chance of gaining a much less clouded comprehension, than someone whose understanding is going to be clouded by hatred for the opposing side.
Your problem is like most people - you havent even shown the basic understanding of the conflict - religion is all to blame according to you - lets forget about the PLO shall we and arab nationalism. Lets forget about the international consensus for 30 years only for the US to Veto it many times over. Lets forget about the orthodox Jewish stance against the zionist state of Isreal.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-18-2010, 02:31 PM
Two things I note in this thread:

First, the actual results of the poll are 60-40 in favor of those who would like to see a two-state solution. But the comments made in the posts swing even more strongly in the opposite direction. I'm not sure exactly what conclusion can be drawn from this other than that the voices expressed here don't always reflect the thoughts of the body as a whole.

Second, we appear to have reached a point in the conversation where those who are expressing themselves can have their respective positions summarized as asserting "if you question my interpretation of history, then you are blind to the true history." The only conclusion that seems credible from this is that we've reached an impasse in the discussion as there is no longer a willingness to seek common ground from which to continue to have a discussion.
"I'm right, you're wrong."
"No, you're wrong, I'm right."
The above is not a discussion. Perhaps its time for this thread to be closed.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-18-2010, 02:43 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
The above is not a discussion. Perhaps its time for this thread to be closed.
Maybe you can bring this poll and discussion to a zionist forum, and let's see what kind of reactions and quality discussion you will be getting there.
Reply

Zafran
10-18-2010, 02:50 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Two things I note in this thread:

First, the actual results of the poll are 60-40 in favor of those who would like to see a two-state solution. But the comments made in the posts swing even more strongly in the opposite direction. I'm not sure exactly what conclusion can be drawn from this other than that the voices expressed here don't always reflect the thoughts of the body as a whole.

Second, we appear to have reached a point in the conversation where those who are expressing themselves can have their respective positions summarized as asserting "if you question my interpretation of history, then you are blind to the true history." The only conclusion that seems credible from this is that we've reached an impasse in the discussion as there is no longer a willingness to seek common ground from which to continue to have a discussion.
"I'm right, you're wrong."
"No, you're wrong, I'm right."
The above is not a discussion. Perhaps its time for this thread to be closed.
Man if people havent even read the history, problems and proposed solutions of the Isreal/palestine conflict how can anybody take the "interpretation" seriously - there is no interpretation there just vain talk. The poll itself shows your not familar with basic things in the conflict - for starters Abbas and his party are not the democratically elected govenment of palestine - Hamas is. Thats like someone talking to mccain for peace when Obama is the president. They have to bring Hamas to talk.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-19-2010, 01:13 AM
Originally Posted by Zafran
The poll itself shows your not familar with basic things in the conflict - for starters Abbas and his party are not the democratically elected govenment of palestine - Hamas is. Thats like someone talking to mccain for peace when Obama is the president. They have to bring Hamas to talk.

The initial post clarifies why the question was asked in this particular form. The two parties identified in the poll had announced that they were meeting and had gone so far as to declare a goal of some sort of peace settlement in a year's time. So the poll asks if you are in favor of what they are discussing? If you think that Abbas has no place making such a statement or being involved in such discussions, then that would be a reason to vote NO.
Reply

Zafran
10-19-2010, 01:50 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
The initial post clarifies why the question was asked in this particular form. The two parties identified in the poll had announced that they were meeting and had gone so far as to declare a goal of some sort of peace settlement in a year's time. So the poll asks if you are in favor of what they are discussing? If you think that Abbas has no place making such a statement or being involved in such discussions, then that would be a reason to vote NO.
why would it? If I came up with poll - do you think Mccain should invade Iran? would it matter if people voted yes or no even though he isnt the president of the US? same problem here. Your right this thread should be closed.
Reply

sabr*
10-19-2010, 02:48 AM
As-Salāmu `Alaykum (السلام عليكم):


Read my thread on The American Radical Norman Finkelstein and reality will provide you with the insights of the impossibilites of peace. Peace requires two sides to desire it. The motivation for the agents and supporters for both Palestinian people (الشعب الفلسطيني‎, ash-sha`b al-filasTīni) and Israel have no interest in Peace. Does not serve the interests of fundraising and the Billions of no strings attached support from the United States.

http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...in-2009-a.html

Then review the 60 Minutes episode on the City of David fallacy with Lesley Stahl that will provide another view on the impossibility of Peace:


http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?...in;contentBody
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!