Al-Quds Divided: The Politics of Hatred

I am afraid that all the points in post #93 of Sigalph235 are valid. We can use rhetoric to deny them but they are in our face.

Sigalph and Scout,

You ae right that currently the Zionist Stateis too powerful for any of the Muslim states; primarily asit has nukes and they dont (excep pakistan); but why?

the reason is that the muslims are not united--when we become united insha Allah, THEN the days for the illegitimate zionist state created by the British and French with the Balfour and Sykes-Picot treaties--and now protected by the USAas its arm in the Middle East WILL vanish.

It might not happen in our lifetimes but it definitely happen. The Mahdi will appear. And when hedoes--bye, bye Israel.

Okay, so they will fight if their existence is threatened? They will probably use nukes. In a matter of nukes some middle eastern countries will get nukes too, eg iran. Then what? There are over a billion muslims in the world and only about 5 million odd Zionists in Israel--so, will they be willing to play the nuke card with such odds?

This is all immaterial as Allah`s Messenger alayhi salaato salaam has told us that Islam will one day rule the world again. And the whole world can be wrong but Allah`s Messenger can NEVER NEVER be wrong.

Also, remember that it took the Muslims 88 years before Jerusalem was liberated from the Crusaders under Sultan SalaH ud Deen. So what is a mere 50 odd years. We can wait for a 1000 years patiently, but one day, it is promised that Al Quds will be ours...:-)

And as for the Jews, they can live their peacefully as ahl ul dhimma, like they did in the past. So dont give me these words about antisemitism...

the israelis can win a 100 wars but the muslims only have to win ONE and its all over.

It might happen before the Mahdi comes (I doubt it) but when he alayhi salaam appears...

Why do most palestinians inside Occupied Palestine

support HAMAS and not the peace treaty? Ask yourself...

Why did the indo-paks want freedom from the british?

re bilal ahmed`s

``What I don’t share with you is your indirect legitimization of the injustices against the poor, innocent, and oppressed Palestinians.``

There you go again! Just because one supports the right of Israel to exist within secure frontiers and condemns the anti-semitism espoused by the types of krashid does not mean legitimization of oppressio against the Palestinian people.

The Palestinians have had a rough a deal through history. But your voices on behalf of the Palestinian people (as opposed to the PLO brass) will carry more weight when the oppressions of other Arabs towards their Palestinian `bretheren` is called to task as well. Since you claim to know so much about Middle Eastern history, how is it that you are so mum about the massacre of Palectinians during Black December in 1970 by the Jordanians(helped by Pakistanis, I might add). Or how about the butchery at Tripoli, Lebanon in 1983 by the Syrians against the Palestinians? Or maybe the behaviour displayed by the Kuwaitis against the Palestinians in the aftermath of the liberation of Kuwait. See, if oppression by Israelis is bad then oppression by Arabs is too. It would appear that the plight of Palestinians is more of an item of chessboard politics than genuine concern for a lot of Arab thugs like Saddam and Gaddafi.

I am under no illusion that what I say is extremely unpopular and politically blasphemous in Arab/Muslim circles. But then genuine friends of Palestinians must ask themselves, after fifty years of a failed violent anti-semitic, anti-Western policy, are they any better off? How long are the Palestinian people going to be held hostage to the capricious whims of lazy Oriental scholars and corrupt Arab dictators?

Siagalph #235

What is anti-semitic in my post.

Are fact presentation mostly from European sources anti-semitism. Does condemning the killings of hundreds of Palestinian by the whole world anti-semitic.

I have presented the argument as they exist.

And most of my views on jewish thinking is taken directly from Zionist books themselves and not anti-zionist as you are trying to proove.

If you don`t know the difference between a jew and gentile and their place in jewish religion and thinking you should read it to know the world view of them.

Also the argument that jews have been massacred and left only the intelligent jews is also from books by jewish writers.

Also how can you condemn Pakistani mercenaries when they at least give back your land and not call jewish the same, when they have captured also the land of palestinian people.

Also you have to differentiate the difference between fighting between Khalida Zia and Hasina Sheikh and say for example India and Bangladesh. Do you agree both are bad but of a different nature.

And criteria of being authentic is not to take an UNPOPULAR STAND. But the consistency of thought by which you judge different phenomenon whether it is popular or unpopular.

In response to sigalph235 (Reply # 100)

Dear Sigalph235:

If the Jews (I am not talking about the Israeli citizens only) were/are victims of anti-semitism (which they were/are), they themselves be more sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians. At present, the question is not of either/or. Israel is a reality (despite its long and ugly modern history). Krashid is entitled to his opinions, and his opinion shouldn’t really affect your viewpoint and rhetoric.

The Arab regimes have often played games that have been detrimental to the cause of the Palestinian people. I don’t claim to know much about modern Middle Eastern history, I am only a casual reader (perhaps like most other Chowkwallas). I never remain mum about any act of transgression as long as I understand it adequately. I, for example, have a bad taste in my mouth about the mercenary role of Pakistan Army in both within and outside Pakistan.

Your statement: “. . . genuine friends of Palestinians must ask themselves, after fifty years of a failed violent antisemitic, anti-Western policy, are they any better off? How long are the Palestinian people going to be held hostage to the capricious whims of lazy Oriental scholars and corrupt Arab dictators?”

Comment: Yes, you have put your finger on the right spot (though I am not sure if I understand your viewpoint adequately). Who are the lazy Oriental scholars? Edward Said? Who are the corrupt Arab dictators? Who is formulating and implementing anti-Western policies? What do you propose to change the situation? Could you propose a solution that will be lasting and honorably valued by all parties in the long run?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Are you aware of Tikkun (a research journal published by some radical-liberal Israelis)?

Lebanese civil war history....

http://www.techfak.uni-kiel.de/

What one would consider justice for the Palestinians is dependent on one`s view of history.

Prior to Israel, the Jews were a people without a nation. ( Another people without a nation are the gypsies.)

The long history of persecution of Jews persuaded them that to defend themselves they would need a territory of their own, and so they claimed Palestine, even though they dispersed from there two thousand years ago.

Jewish immigration into Palestine, which then was under British rule, created a large minority of Jews among the previously resident Palestinians. No solution was found for how these people could live together politically, and the United Nations recommended and voted for a partition of Palestine, into two states. A map of the UN plan is at

http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/single_image/0,5716,7241+asmbly%5Fid,00.html

Compare this to what the Palestinians have today, after so many years of suffering and struggle, e.g., see ``Maps`` under

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/mideast/

The discussion of how this all came about must necessarily include a philosophical discussion of minority rights, partition etc. -- problems that South Asia has had to confront as well. We all know how difficult these can be.

Given the situation after 1947, the wars subsequent to the UN partition plan cost the Palestinians dearly. Apportioning blame for those wars is beyond this writer. The net result was that Israel was able to expand, and a large Palestinian refugee population was created.

A dispassionate look at history would show that every act of violence has hurt the Palestinians more than it has helped. One can only conclude (also see Mazdak in Dawn) that a non-violent struggle would have achieved better results.

Of course, a non-violent movement for the rights of Palestinians would implicitly also recognize that equivalent rights exist for the Israelis. ( One cannot have a non-violent struggle to obliterate someone else. ) I think far too many Palestinians, and Arabs in general, are not reconciled to the fact of Israel and still have the goal of somehow making it vanish. Therefore, the non-violent path has never been seriously examined. Also, the current peace process cannot succeed.

If justice is to live in peace, security, with prosperity, with political freedom, with a voice in the conduct of one`s own affairs, with freedom of religion, culture, etc., then I believe that the Palestinians can achieve it only by non-violent means. But the original UN plan is out of reach.

-arun gupta

In reply to krashid : ``Jews control the economy``, etc. is nonsense; and does comprise anti-semitism.

Regarding their religious attitudes -- I believe the orthodox Jews can compete with orthodox Muslims in their intolerant fundamentalism. But the modernists are a very different people.

-arun gupta

Sigalph235 #100

Wasn`t it Black September? The Palestenians still hate Zia for the tortures. The whole Arab, as well as the Muslim, world were conspicuously mum. As a matter of fact, a lot of Pakistani army personnel got very well off from this `phoren` operations.

I tend to agree with you that the Palestenians have unfortunately ended up as pawns to play with in the hands of self-serving despots and the mis-guided religious zealots. If they had, instead, settled with the Israelis long time ago, the current, as well as the future, generations would have been a much better lot than most of their chest-beating bretheren. Besides, how could the Middle Eastern sheikhs, kings and dictators vouch for the rights for others when they are loath to grant the same to their own citizenery! Is it worth ruining for Jerusalem, when one could really settle for a joint or bilateral governance of the city? Does the sovereignity over it offers a pancea for all the Palestenian ills and misery? What Palestenians need right now are some leaders who can think rationally, rather than emotively, and guide people to arrive at compromises and a path to liberation from this wretched life of misery, wandering around,and begging help from the hypocratic and self-serving religious zealots. No Asif, you can wallow in your prophecies, this people have suffered enough and have no patience for the `great arrival`. Reliving the past will not buy the future!

Kant......

Kant Patel #106

Dear Kant,

I am indeed perplexed by your post. I usually find your posts to be well thought out and well reasoned.

You say:

“Palestenians have unfortunately ended up as pawns to play with in the hands of self-serving despots and the mis-guided religious zealots. If they had, instead, settled with the Israelis long time ago, the current, as well as the future, generations would have been a much better lot than most of their chest-beating bretheren. Besides, how could the Middle Eastern sheikhs, kings and dictators vouch for the rights for others when they are loath to grant the same to their own citizenery! Is it worth ruining for Jerusalem, when one could really settle for a joint or bilateral governance of the city?”


Have you ever reflected on why Palestinians have ended up as pawns to play within the hand of self-serving despots? Do you think if they had a country of their own, they would still be pawns? Do you think because Arab sheikhs have no regard for human rights, nobody should raise voice for the oppressed Palestinians? Do you really understand the significance of Jerusalem for Palestinians/Muslims? Do you think religious beliefs/spiritual attachment of Muslim people is not worth giving any weight to while deciding the fate of Jerusalem? What do you know about the US policies vis-à-vis oil rich Middle East? Do you think US/west has played any part in keeping the Royal dynasties of various Arab countries in power? Have you ever reflected on why wouldn’t US/West impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia or Jordan or Egypt or even Turkey for gross human rights abuses?

You say:

“Does the sovereignty over it [Jerusalem] offers a pancea for all the Palestenian ills and misery? What Palestenians need right now are some leaders who can think rationally, rather than emotively, and guide people to arrive at compromises and a path to liberation from this wretched life of misery, wandering around, and begging help from the hypocratic and self-serving religious zealots.”


Perhaps sovereignty over Jerusalem won’t solve all the ills and miseries of the oppressed Palestinians. However, don’t you think it’s rather arrogant to lecture Palestinians on what is right/better for them? Isn’t it THEIR basic human right to decide their own fate? Do you feel any empathy towards homeless, oppressed people of Palestine? Do you think it is ok to kill Palestinian women, men and children because they are Arabs/Muslims? Do you think Arabs/Muslims are generally bad people and deserve to be killed?

If you were given a mandate to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what would you propose which would be acceptable to all parties?

Arun Gupta #104

You say:

“Prior to Israel, the Jews were a people without a nation. ( Another people without a nation are the gypsies.)
The long history of persecution of Jews persuaded them that to defend themselves they would need a territory of their own, and so they claimed Palestine, even though they dispersed from there two thousand years ago”

Why do you say that Jews were a people without a nation? Weren’t they Germans? Austrians? British? Africans? Russians? Wasn’t/isn’t it their own choice to remain a distinct people based on their religious beliefs despite centuries of inhabitation in various countries? If you regard their claim of a nationhood based on their religious beliefs as valid, then would you agree with Mr. Jinnah that Indian Muslims were/are a separate entity from Hindus? And would you agree with the demand of Kashmiris for a separate homeland since they are Muslims? And they are not even talking about migrating from Europe to Kashmir to carve out a homeland for themselves? They have hundreds of years of continued presence in Kashmir…and they are majority, not a minority in that region.

While reading history of creation of Israel, didn’t you come across any historical account suggesting that Zionist movement carefully planned migration of Jews into Palestine? Did you know that Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians were not responsible for the persecution of Jews in Europe? And while philosophizing on the 2000 year old “historical” claim of Jews, and West’s decision to settle the Jewish problem in Europe, once and for all, by settling them in Palestine (in accordance with the whishes of Zionists), do you think that Palestine was uninhabited?
There are several UN resolutions, which Israelis have disregarded with sheer arrogance. Is this ok since they are militarily more powerful than Palestinians?

You say:

“If justice is to live in peace, security, with prosperity, with political freedom, with a voice in the conduct of one`s own affairs, with freedom of religion, culture, etc., then I believe that the Palestinians can achieve it only by non-violent means. But the original UN plan is out of reach.”

Why hasn’t India adopted a non-violent approach to resolving the issue of Kashmir? Is it because violent approach in this case is not likely to hurt “India” as much as it is hurting “Kashmiris”? If it were the other way around, only then a non-violent approach would have been appropriate?

Knowing your keen interest in history, I am indeed perplexed to see that while the struggle of Palestinians is still on, and history is in the making, you have already written the final chapter of your history book on this matter and concluded.

In response to Fairdinkum (Reply # 107)

Dear Fairdinkum:

A very penetrating set of question. My God, you write like me (perhaps better than me).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

fairdinkum #107,

Yaar, no need to get naraaz! I have to rush now, but will get back and explain my stance on the subject. After that you may find mine not too far off yours.

Talk to ya latr........Kant

In response to mcgupta (Reply # 104)

Dear Arun:

Your statement: “I think far too many Palestinians, and Arabs in general, are not reconciled to the fact of Israel and still have the goal of somehow making it vanish.”

Comment: Is this just a guess? Or, is it based on any systematic study? Even if your statement has some merit (which I don’t think it does), should you distinguish between the rhetoric (in anger and/or frustration) and the actual capacity to make it a reality? Is there a comparison between the power of Israel (and its Western support base) and the combined power of the rest of the world, let alone the power of the Arabs?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In reply to fairdinkum, #104, briefly -- I will try to amplify on points if requested.

1. I say that Jews were a people without a nation because they were liable to expulsion from European countries at any time during their history in Europe. Jews in many Middle Eastern countries, Ethopia, India etc. did not suffer from that liability. I did not mean these latter Jews.

2. Where Jews were not persecuted, they blended in. Sometimes so well that the people are barely distinguishable, and their claim to be lost Jews seems dubious.

The achievements of European Jews in the early 1900s was from a population that was blended in. Hitler disrupted the blending process.

2. No, I would not agree with Mr. Jinnah that Muslims of India are a separate nation, because there was no intention on treating them like the Jews of Europe. Muslims were and are to be equal citizens of India along with Hindus and everyone else.

3. No, I would not agree to the Kashmiris` claim of a separate homeland as long as Kashmiris are treated as equal citizens of India and simultaneously India remains a free country. I do not recognize the unqualified right of secession.

4. Yes, I know that Zionists planned migrations to Palestine. They even did it illegally, against British law. I don`t think Palestine was uninhabited; as I wrote, immigration created a large minority -- which implies there was another people there before.

5. On migration -- should I say that migration is in every case wrong ?

6. Likewise, when people are neighbours, is political separation between them desirable or wise ? Why couldn`t there have been a secular democratic state of Palestine instead of Israel and (future) Palestine ?

7. In any case, just as in South Asia, the decisions of 1947 cannot be undone, we have to live with the consequences, good and bad. I therefore did not see any need to discuss the issues of migration and self-determination/separation at length.

7. Israelis ignoring UN resolutions whose effect would not be to obliterate them is wrong. However, the very first one, namely peaceful partition of Palestine was not followed by one side; and the effect of that particular one tends to make subsequent resolutions meaningless.

8. In Kashmir, India did not lift the gun first. India has no reason to yield to a violent secessionist movement.

In my opinion, the only Kashmiri group that India should consent to talk with is that of Shabir Shah, who has been non-violent by principle. I will agree with you and anyone else that India has not treated him with justice.

-arun gupta

Perhaps fairdinkum and or others may want to comment on how the principles they would apply to Palestine or Kashmir should be used in the case of the Kurds of Turkey, Iraq and Iran.

-arun gupta