Peace in Palestine?

[Zenya_Yousif]

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.!

 

[nousername]

As long as the Israelis continue to be land grabbers by continuing to build ILLEGAL settlements, their is virtually no chance for peace

 

[Ezekiel_B]

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.

 

[Seeker1066]

Yes that pretty well sums it up. Israel isn't after peace anyway.

 

[Ezekiel_B]

And neither is Palestine, by the sounds of it.

 

[سيف الله]

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.

 

[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.

 

[سيف الله]

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.

 

[Zafran]

And neither is Palestine, by the sounds of it.

Neither is the USA looking at the veto against International concensus.

Palestine is after palestine

 

[Zafran]

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?

 

[Ramadhan]

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.

 

[Ezekiel_B]

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.

 

[سيف الله]

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.

 

[Argamemnon]

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

 

[Ezekiel_B]

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.

 

[Zafran]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Ramadhan]

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.

 

[Zafran]

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.

 

[Grace Seeker]

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.