Al-Quds Divided: The Politics of Hatred

RE: Fairdinkum # 108

Why is that, ultimately, all arguments lead to ``THAT`` conclusion-which you try your best to avoid?

All roads lead to Rome.

PS. Good arguments in #108; an argument without passion is a tree that fell in a jungle when no one was around.....

Urstruly #114, ahmadb #107, Arun Gupta, and Kant

Dear Bilal and Urstruly,

Thanks for your kind words and encouragement.

The following is addressed to all participants in general:

The intent of my argument(s) was not to ultimately bring up the issue of Kashmir or to revisit the two-nation theory or to start India v Pakistan mudslinging match. Neither do I feel any discomfort/reluctance in bringing up these issues where appropriate. I do not concur with the approach/actions of Kashmiri militants, and I condemn the high-handed approach of Indian security forces in Kashmir and elsewhere. Although I have personally experienced love, respect, and a feeling of brotherhood amongst Muslims of the world, I still have some reservations about two-nation theory or the concept of Muslim people as one nation.

I find it extremely offensive, totally unacceptable even evil to legitimise/justify (directly or indirectly) killing/oppression (in any form), of innocent men, women and children and the weak anywhere in the world for any reason whatever. Be it Jews of Europe, Hindu yatris in Kashmir, minorities, women, and the weak in Pakistan, Kurds in Turkey, Iran and Iraq, Muslims in Bosnia/Kosova or Palestinians in “Israel.” They are human beings, and worthy of respect, and dignity.

I am a simple man, and I do not claim to have any in-depth understanding of the complexities and subtleties of world politics, history, international affairs, and the “games” that are being played by various economic/military powers around the globe. All I know is that it is incumbent upon me as a human being to stand up and be counted (in whatever capacity I can) and speak out against oppression. And if this road leads to Rome, or even hell, so be it. The passion, which, as urstruly point out, becomes apparent in my posts in such circumstances, is not something I am ashamed of.

I will address Mr. Arun Gupta’s post sometime later today.

re fairdinkum and bilal ahmad

Your genuine anguish at the plight of Palestinians would carry more weight if you keep the situation in perspective. Specially if you

1. Condemn Arab atrocities against Palestinians as much as Israeli ones

2. Refrain from the exploiting your greed to bring Kashmir into this

3. Understand the fact that the Jews are ordinary human beings not demons

That said, as one contributor points out, the Arabs are on a bit of a shaky ground asking for implementation of UN resolutions. Had they accepted the partition resolution of 1948, none of this would have happened.

Those of you who really oppose US policy in the Middle East and want to change it need a few additional pointers. The US will not abandon Israel as long as supporters of the Palestinian side

1. Condone, no matter in what bizarre terms, terrorism

2. Ignore that Israel remains a democracy while Arabs remain medieval dictatorships

3. Fail to unequivocally accept the right of Israel to exist within secure and safe frontiers.

UNtil then, please get a very large cup of cappucino along with Asif NAqshbandi as y`all wait for the Mahdi to conquer Israel and all the other good stuff.

Re: Pat #543

That your impression- that most of the foot soldiers taking it in the face during the civil disobedience movement were of the `illiterate masses` variety- was instigated by Sir Attenborough is worrisome to me. I watched that movie too and fail to understand why you got that impression. That is unless of course you assumed that those guys lining up and taking a lathi on their heads must be doing so as a result of their illiteracy. Or perhaps you got misguided by their ragged homespuns and assumed that those who donned such an attire must be yokels. Either of the above two deductions (if you made them) do disservice to the `composition` of those masses.

My late Grandpa was one of the leading defense attorneys in the state. I still remember his disfigured (but very functional) arm that resulted from a compound fracture at a rally very similar to the one described in the movie. Even though he wore homespun until he died, I would have a really tough time classifying him as illiterate.

Thought this perspective would shed a bit of light.

Latif Chappu.

P.S. Commendations on your Bilalesque demeanor with YLH. It is a great tribute to your communication skills and subtle understanding of his apparently permanent sophomoric mental constitution that he hasn`t yet turned around and blasted you like he did poor Bilal. Having said that however..... just you wait. :)

ylh #597 Now I see why you post at 90 mph - you cross-post!! (I just responded to this one on the other board). Would ataturk approve of that? (PS just kidding again, I need some comic relief from the serious stuff I am doing right now).

Remember, Sikhashahi was synonymous with terror and tyranny. Avitable, the Italian governor of Peshawar under Maharaja Ranjit Singh, used to hand out jagirs whose rent was payable in Afghan (i.e., Pathan) heads. If I remember correctly, he had a sliding scale: something like 1 male head = 1+n female heads = 1 + xn children`s heads (sorry, don`t remember the exact ratio, although male children were worth more than female ones). I believe even Clive would have drawn the line at this! Lest we say that this was a White Male European thing, don`t forget that mothers in Hazara (NWFP) used to quieten their crying children with, ``Hush, or Hari Singh Nalwa will hear you!``

Of course, the Moghuls treated the Sikhs not much better. And the Mahrattas had good reason to hate (and be hated by, in turn) the Moghuls. And so on, ad infinitum.

Was the Raj perfect? Of course not.

Did it have no glaring faults? Of course it did.
Could it have done much better with relatively minimal effort/cost. Of course.

Was it better than what came before it? Of course.

Are we better off because of it? I would say yes.

Have we shown that we are morally superior to it? Of course not.

Look at how brutally we treat our own people: the E. Pakistan civil war, Baluch insurgency, Sindh MRD agitation, Punjab/Khalistan insurgency, Kashmir insurgency, NEFA/Assam insurgency, the Sri Lankan civil war and the list is seemingly endless. Oh yeah, all this is the Gora Saab`s fault and if he didn`t directly cause it, it is the inevitable result of the harsh, repressive, dehumanizing, fill in a few more adjectives here, nature of the colonial state.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Arun:

Before we get too ecstatic about how great our pre-Raj institutions were, any anthropologist/sociologist will tell you that a key, if not the key, function, of most traditional institutions (e.g., village panchiyats) is to ensure that the dominant power and socio-economic position of the existing village elites is maintained. If some have managed to make the traditional system (or variants thereof, e.g., the AKRSP in Pakistan) work, its because you have an outside agency that acts to keep the exising village elites in line.

fairdinkum #107, & other interested posters,

Fairdinkum, since this article has been scrolled over, I was going to call it quits. However, I had promised to come back, and you asked, rather emotionally (you may call it passion!), many rhetorical questions. Put it mildly, you did not like my response. So, let me try one more time.

It seems, you presumed certain lack of understandings on my part, namely:

1. How Israel came into being.

2. What part the West, esp. US, played in the whole affair.

3. The politics of oil in ME.

4. Perhaps my inherent dislike for Arabs/Muslims.

5. My failure to respect significance of Jerusalem

to Islam.

Granted, I am no expert on ME history, politics or interplay of ethno-religious factors. However, whatever rudimentary knowledge I possess, the basic theme in my post still stand on a firm ground. I have nothing against Arabs, Muslims, religion or ethnicity. It is only based on one thread: What is beneficial TODAY for the Palastinians? To me, it is to settle for peace, stable home, own self-rule and a hope for a decent living. As Sigalph mentioned, they could have avoided decades of misery only if they were prudent and pragmetic enough to accept the 1948 UN resolution. In today`s Dawn opinion page, a writer is echoing the same thoughts, Says he, if the Arabs had accepted the existence of Israel, the state of Palestine would have come into existence decades ago. This is why my outbursts re. Arabs despots and religious zealots. When two countries are trying to settle, why the religion has to be dragged into? Why it suddenly becomes a do or die issue for a billion? As the US News reported, the problem is so intertwined with religion(s) that it has become difficult for any compromise; and, it states, ultimately may be impossible to solve. So,I do understand the religious complexities involved. It further adds to my argument that emotions, religion, etc. aside, now probably is the best time to strike a deal. Otherwise it may reach a point of no return. In that case, the future Palestinian generations will have no respect for their Muslim sympathisers who live in their own protected, secure territories while preaching them the virtues of Islamiyat. What the Palestinians, under Arafat, are asking for is exclusive sovereignty over J. You know, and I know, even if its fair, in reality it is not going to happen, esp. after desecration of the Jacobs tomb. So what is wrong to stop posturing, agitating and, worse still, lose innocent lives for a cause that is far-fetched. As you know, the Jews were barred from praying at the Wailing Wall from 1948 to 1965(8?) when Jordan controlled the city. Jews will not forget that and be willing to give up J.

As to the machinations of the West, US etc., they going to do what is best in their interests. Besides there is no recourse and, hence, no use on keep harping on that. In ME and SE Asia it is an old cliche, just muddy the rationality to see things clearly. As long as there is oil in ME, there is going to be `oil politics & diplomacy`. When they run out of it, the rest of the world would not even bother whether they exist or not!

In your response to Arun, you mention that much maligned `K` word. Instead of replying to the argument at hand you are trying to put the writer down. Besides, what happens in `Rome`(read K......), has no bearing in the ME.

Kant.....

Sigalph235 #116
Thanks for you advice. I am glad to see that you have decided to move forward and away from your rhetoric about Muslims/Palestinians. However, your resentment against Muslims/Islam/Palestinians is quite obvious. It is not necessarily a bad/negative thing; at least you say what you feel in your heart and that’s fine. You express your views openly. I respect that. I hope we can develop mutual respect through learning, exploring and understanding each other’s views. I must say that you have raised some very vital points in your post.
Let us explore your articles of advice in ascending order.

“1. Condemn Arab atrocities against Palestinians as much as Israeli ones”

Sure thing…however, at appropriate times & at appropriate places. In my view, it is not wise for sympathizers of Palestinians to get distracted at this point in time. Israelis are beating the hell out of Palestinian men, women and children in clear violation of the Universal declaration of human rights and international law. They are engaged in shooting children without showing any regard to Security Council’s resolution condemning Israeli actions as “excessive use of force.” Israel needs to be condemned and Palestinians need our support… This is what we should focus on for the moment.
Let me give you example: In the wake of publication of HRC report, our point of focus should be the atrocities committed by Pakistan army against unarmed, innocent Bengali men, women and children. Not what some other party did or did not do to hurt Bengalis in the past. After the publication of HRC report, a distraction of any sort will be greatly welcomed by Pakistan army – and not by Bengalis or their sympathizers. Bengalis still, rightfully, feel the hurt and pain of atrocities committed by the “Eastern Command”. Imagine (and tell me how you would feel) if the bloodbath of East Pakistan was happening now, and Bengalis or their sympathizers were being told to condemn what Bengalis themselves have done to their own people in the past and/or condemn the “terrorist” acts of Mukti Bahinis against Pak Army and their civilian representatives, rather than condemn the Eastern Command.

Distraction is an age-old technique of oppressors. Whereas, we must condemn Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, and other Islamic countries for their human rights abuses, for their treatment of women and minorities, for their barbaric medieval structure of society, we should not get distracted from what’s happening to Palestinians ‘here and now’ because this, or because somebody else, besides Israelis, has also done the same thing to them in the past or that some splinter groups/fanatic sympathizers of Palestinians have committed acts of terrorism. Yes, by all means, we must condemn all terrorist acts, which, at best, achieve nothing more than a slap on the wrist of oppressors at the expense of innocent human lives. Terrorist acts provide a welcome distraction for oppressors by shifting the focus of world attention from the plight of the oppressed to these “heinous” “terrorist” acts. It is well known that sometimes oppressors themselves commit terrorism on behalf of the oppressed to distract world attention.


“2. Refrain from the exploiting your greed to bring Kashmir into this”

If in Kashmir or Dhaka or Bosnia or Kosova or Rawanda or on any other place on earth, atrocities are being committed against innocent men, women and children, we should not refrain from condemning such heinous acts. I feel comfortable with bringing Kashmir or former East Pakistan into the argument where appropriate. In my post to arun, the argument re kashimir was to illustrate a point. As I often use Bengali/Bangladeshi examples while talking to you. Unlike some others on this site, I look at the problem of Kashmir as a human tragedy.

“3. Understand the fact that the Jews are ordinary human beings not demons”

All human beings are worthy of respect and dignity. One should do their best to avoid making gross generalizations/blanket statements about any race/religion/ethnicity/nationality. I believe I pointed this out to you in response to your post #17? Please read my posts addressed to you carefully.

I get along quite well with Jewish people. One of my best friend is a Jewish lady who calls me a brother. Her mother, who is a survivor of Auschwitz, formed an organization in the 70’s to show solidarity with Palestinian women. It is mainly through her and her friends (all Jewish) that I know a lot more, than I would have, about the history of Zionist movement and why so many Jews (mostly survivors of European concentration camps, and their children) are/were against Zionism and the concept of the state of Israel.

Your statement:

“That said, as one contributor points out, the Arabs are on a bit of a shaky ground asking for implementation of UN resolutions. Had they accepted the partition resolution of 1948, none of this would have happened.”

Perhaps it wouldn’t have happened, and perhaps it was/is inevitable that carving out a country for European Jews in the middle of potentially hostile Arabs was a bad idea to start with. Nonetheless, for West, it was, at the time, the only permanent solution to Jewish “menace” in Europe, and perhaps west was only too happy to collaborate with Zionists to get rid of them – once and for all. What Hitler could not achieve by his efficient gas chambers, and SS mercenaries, Zionists did, and with relative ease I might add, by creating Israel.

As for the UN partition resolution of 1948, and various other points raised in arun gupta’s post, I will post a detailed response soon.

Your statement:

“Those of you who really oppose US policy in the Middle East and want to change it need a few additional pointers. The US will not abandon Israel as long as supporters of the Palestinian side

1. Condone, no matter in what bizarre terms, terrorism”

I think I have addressed this issue already.

“2. Ignore that Israel remains a democracy while Arabs remain medieval dictatorships”

I think the above has largely been addressed… however, a detailed discussion of Israeli democracy and Royal dynasties of Arabia is warranted here. However, due to time constraints, it would be better to leave this for later. I do concur with you that most Middle Eastern countries, or at least their governments, are living in medieval age. But then, world hasn’t seen a democracy that engages in such brutal acts as Israel does and gets away with it too.

“3. Fail to unequivocally accept the right of Israel to exist within secure and safe frontiers.”

The right of Israel to exist within secure, safe, agreed, properly demarcated frontiers has been acknowledged in principal by almost all Arab countries. As Bilal puts it, one should distinguish between the rhetoric of Arabs/Muslims (in anger and/or frustration)to annihilate Israel and the actual capacity to make it a reality. Israel refuses to observe the internationally agreed demarcation of frontiers, refuses to withdraw from occupied territories, and continues to expand its “settlements” in west bank and Gaza strip. Israel is also in contravention of all accords signed to date under the auspices of US.

Your statement:

“UNtil then, please get a very large cup of cappucino along with Asif NAqshbandi as y`all wait for the Mahdi to conquer Israel and all the other good stuff.”

Asif Naqshbandi is entitled to his views/beliefs. I, however, prefer not to probe into his views/beliefs. I am surprised, and disappointed to learn that you consider Bilal or myself to be in Asif Naqshbandi’s league.

Your comments about Mahdi, which for me is a very interesting concept/philosophy/symbolism in Islamic tradition/belief system, and for billions of others a cherished religious belief which provides hope for a better future, are as derogatory and demeaning, if not more, as Asif Naqshbandi’s comments. Such comments only expose one’s ignorance and lack of respect for religious/spiritual beliefs of fellow human beings.

Your comments remind me of a very famous comment by former Australian Prime Minister by the name of Mr. Bob Hawk. In mid 80’s Aborigines of Australia initiated legal proceedings to claim a piece of land in south Australia, which according to their religious beliefs was/is a sacred spiritual/religious site for them. The rednecks who still believe in white Australia policy, and regard Aborigines as sub-human, launched a campaign to undermine Aborigines and their claim by ridiculing Aboriginal spiritual beliefs as “pure superstition” and “medieval rubbish.” When asked about his opinion on this matter during a press conference, Bob Hawk said, “And who has seen the Christian God?”

fairdinkum #121
Just a gentle reminder that though `appropriate` sentiments may not have been expressed on this thread in response to questions raised, it may not be because such sentiments are absent.

Its a human tragedy whenever political problems are sought to be resolved through violence, whether by a powerful state apparatus or by non-state armed groups. But it doesnot necessarily follow that `giving in` to violence by either side is the most sustainable foundation for ending the human tragedy.

Coming to Palestine and Kashmir, without going into possible solutions or the justness of any party`s stand, IMO a lasting solution has been made difficult by the fact that the `democratic` or representative structures to reflect the various shades of political opinions of most Palentinians and Kashmiris are weak or lacking(or forcibly silenced with the threat of terrorist/state violence). This results in neither of these groups (if taken as single entities) being able to deliver workable, sustainable and largely representative positions in response to any event or initiative, thus frittering away any progress towards solutions. An added cost is that its difficult to comprehensively sideline extreme viewpoints held by a few even when a moderate majority of their population would wish to do so. Remaining honestly representative to the political views of a large and diverse population is a difficult problem almost by defination for violent movements, you`ll have to admit.

Israel had at least a mechanism to sideline Ariel Sharon and extremist Israeli stances if it wished. Infact it was said that the recent exit from Barak`s coalition of hardline religious parties presented the best chance for his government to push through any deal with the Palestinians. Perhaps Arafat, even with his `moral authority` doesnot know even now whether he can or cannot deliver on any promises he makes.

Both issues are complicated by other powerful `state` players claiming to represent their(Palestine/Israeli/Kashmiri) interests, who have their own agendas as well and are out of reach of any concerns of accountability and representation.

Sadhana

sadna #122

Thanks for noting that ‘appropriate’ sentiments have not been expressed on this thread in response to the human tragedy of Palestine. And I am aware that such sentiments are not absent.

Yes, I concur ‘giving in’ to violence is not going to bring lasting peace to the region. Violence should stop on both sides… However, keep in mind that one should not narrow the definition of violence down to stone throwing and PLO “terrorist” acts alone. Violence is a broad term!

“IMO a lasting solution has been made difficult by the fact that the `democratic` or representative structures to reflect the various shades of political opinions of most Palentinians and Kashmiris are weak or lacking(or forcibly silenced with the threat of terrorist/state violence). This results in neither of these groups (if taken as single entities) being able to deliver workable, sustainable and largely representative positions in response to any event or initiative, thus frittering away any progress towards solutions.”

To some extent yes… I don’t know much about the political groupings and dynamics of Kashmiri separatists/freedom fighters, but I think PLO largely represents what majority of Palestinians aspires. As for the violence/terrorist activities of PLO and its splinter groups in the past, I believe that their approach in the 70’s was totally misguided. But then, it’s not what you do, its how you do it that matters … and apparently, in this otherwise topsy-turvy world, who does it is also of utmost importance.

I acknowledge the lack of organized, disciplined political efforts on the part of Palestinians to achieve a comprehensive political solution to their miseries, but US-Israel alliance has been and is a formidable opposition for the penniless, homeless, oppressed Palestinians. If Israeli government finds that the promises they made to Palestinians are now becoming unpopular at home, all they have to do is start building more settlements in Gaza or send Ariel Sharon to Al-Quds and the emotional Palestinians will come out onto the streets… Israel can then shoot them down like animals and shift the responsibility of the failure of peace process onto Palestinians too.
All is taken care of from there on by the ‘friends’ of Israel namely the US/West and their powerful and influential media. This has become all too familiar a pattern and recognized as such by UN Security Council save US. I feel reluctant to blame PLO/Arafat/Palestinian people, for their failure to counter this…. It’s like blaming an ant that got trampled by an elephant for being there in the first place.

“Israel had at least a mechanism to sideline Ariel Sharon and extremist Israeli stances if it wished. Infact it was said that the recent exit from Barak`s coalition of hardline religious parties presented the best chance for his government to push through any deal with the Palestinians. Perhaps Arafat, even with his `moral authority` doesnot know even now whether he can or cannot deliver on any promises he makes.”

What would be that mechanism? Elections?
It is also said that Barak’s coalition of hardline religious parties resented the peace process and was extremely unhappy with the promises made to Palestinians by Israeli government in the past and during Mr. Barak’s tenure. They were threatening to bring Mr. Barak down if he proceeded any further with the so-called peace process. So, failure to deliver on the promises has not been entirely a Palestinian problem… in my view, the responsibility of the failure of peace process rests largely with Israel.

“Both issues are complicated by other powerful `state` players claiming to represent their(Palestine/Israeli/Kashmiri) interests, who have their own agendas as well and are out of reach of any concerns of accountability and representation.”

Again, I would not comment on Kashmir (may be we can discuss Kashmir exclusively later – on second thought no… indian Pakistani lar lar kar lootan kabootar hoo jatay hain iss issue par :)), but as far as Israel is concerned, state apparatus with the help of “other powerful state players” also creates ‘complications’ where deemed necessary for “Israeli” as well as “US” interests. On Palestinian side, it’s the Hamas, which is of any significance in this regard.

UN General Assembly condemns Israel

AAP --
The UN General Assembly voted by a large majority late today to condemn what it called Israel`s ``excessive use`` of force against Palestinian civilians, but 46 countries abstained.

The resolution was adopted by 92 votes to six, Israel, the United States and four small Pacific Ocean states voting against.

The vote revealed a sharp split within the European Union, with six EU states abstaining and nine voting in favour.

Australia, with Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Norway, was among other leading Western nations to abstain from voting.

The vote was taken after an eight-hour special emergency session which began on Wednesday and was adjourned for two days so UN Secretary General Kofi Annan could brief the Assembly on his 10-day trip to the Middle East.

The resolution condemned ``acts of violence, especially the excessive use by the Israeli forces of force against Palestinian civilians``.

It expressed support for the understandings reached at the Sharm el-Sheikh summit and urged ``all parties concerned to implement these understandings honestly and without delay``.

It demanded ``the immediate cessation of violence and use of force`` and called on the parties to ``reverse all measures taken in this regard since September 28``.

It described Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, as ``illegal and an obstacle to peace``.

It called upon ``Israel, the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War``.

The session was called at the request of the Palestinian observer to the United Nations, Nasser Al-Kidwa, after it became clear that the UN Security Council would not hold a second meeting on the crisis.

Under rules dating to 1950, the Assembly can hold such a session if a lack of unanimity among the five permanent Security Council members prevent the body from exercising its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.

The Assembly has held 10 special emergency sessions, most of them on the Middle East. The current session has been suspended five times since 1997.

The Assembly resolution echoed much of the language in a resolution adopted by the Council by 14 votes to none on October 7.

The US ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke, who had abstained on the first council vote, said he would veto any new council resolution that criticised Israel.

No member state has a veto in the General Assembly, but unlike Council resolutions, decisions of the Assembly are not binding upon member states.

Holbrooke told reporters before today`s vote that a decision of the Assembly would not have ``the weight, the legitimacy or the authority`` of the Council. - AFP

re fairdinkum #121

Your response is predicated on three themes:

1. Patronizing me by dragging the erstwhile issue of the former East Pakistan in reference to Palestinians

2. Trying to label me an Anti-Arab, Anti-Islamic bigot

3. Trying to label me as ignorant, to say the least.

My opinions on the first theme are well known and well articulated before. There is no comparison. Indian Bengalis were not killing East Pakistani Bengalis, unlike Syrian/Jordianian/Lebanese behaviour towards Palestinans. Mukti Bahini never blew up PIA planes. We did not send our eight year olds to throw stones at Pakistani tanks.

On the second theme, well what can I say. If calling me a bigot is all you got, I feel pretty confident of the veracity of my arguments. BTW I never insulted the Mahdi but did question the imbecility of believing that he will do the earthly work of the PLO.

Regarding the third theme, trust me ignorance is a two way street. Just because someone refuses to go along with popular beliefs does not connote ignorance.

All in all, with all due respect, you have wrote a lot in post #121 but said nothing.

sigalph235 #125

``All in all, with all due respect, you have wrote a lot in post #121 but said nothing.``

Or perhaps you failed to understand it?
You haven`t answered any of my questions.. have you?

Btw, your bigotry/hatred/bitterness/resentment towards Muslims/Palestinians/Arabs is quite obvious.. It`s no different to Pakistani Eastern command`s hatred for Bengalis..

Perhaps you were not expecting to be taken on by anybody on this site for your bigotry....be careful about what you say next time..

re fairdinkum`s threat

`...be careful about what you say next time..`

I come from a people who gave 3 million lives for freedom in a heartbeat. Your threats will not deter me from speaking out.

Siagalph #235

You think that

Since you (meaning Mukti Bahini) did not send eight years old to throw stones, therefore your movement was right.

And since Palestinian children are throwing stones their movement is wrong.

Or, do you mean something else.

Also killing of different groups in Bangladesh at the hands of each other, you don`t think is same as killing by Pakistani mercenaries.

But you think, think that killing of palestinians by their own brothers is same as killing and disposession by jews and Israel.

Can you be consistent in applying criteria. Or America Yatra (travel) by Hasina Wajid and quota for clothes is your criteria of taking sides.

sigalph235

And I am sure if those brave and generous Bengali ``Muslims`` found out about your bigotry, they won`t mind adding another one to 3 million :)