Salaam O Rachel* Salaam

stuka #51:

[...It is a fact, Hamas and Shas feed of each other...]

:)

...we can even speculate that hamas is a `plant` in the palestinian side so the extremist israelis can get away with....;)

when i asked you to show me an official and final map of the state of israel ( # 44) i was not being facetious...their zio-nazi greed has no limits...that is why i oppose zionism and not judaism...

rgds,

t

Sadna: Very true. The peace groups in Israel have always tended to be apologetic. Now, even though the settlements did keep on growing, the Oslo accords called for a roll back of certain settlements. That would have resulted in the Intra Israeli moment of reckoning that is over due, and the delay of which helps only the rightists by allowing them to change the facts on the ground.

There is no doubt that the Isreali right was unhappy with the progress of Oslo. Which is all the more reason the Palestenians should have kept the peace when Sharon made the provocative move of visitng the Dome of the Rock. But the Palestenians played right in to the hands of Sharon and the right, first by rejecting Oslo, second..by not even saying ok..let us keep talking, we will come up with a counter proposal..and then by being provoked to violence by Sharon.

It is a fact, Hamas and Shas feed of each other.

stuka
Re willingness of assorted Palestinians to negotiate

You had mentioned Ehud Barak earlier. The fact is that even during Barak`s time, settlements were allowed to increase. My understanding is that there is a `fundamentalist Israeli` line on the subject of settlements which no recent Israeli leader has had the guts to face down, which creates a problem of trust between them and even moderate Palestinians.

Temporal:

``specifically the `expansionsit` face of zionism that i oppose... ``

Am with you 100%. The fundamentalist settlers are as much an enemy of Israel as Hamas. An Israel limited to it`s pre 1967 border should be a final Israel. Without a reverse migration of settlers though.

Faisaluno:


``effi eitam is a member of the current israeli cabinet whose party (nrp) advocates ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (there are no arabs in the cabinet despite the fact that about 20% of the pop of proper israel is arab. ``

And we have Bal Thackeray. Unfortunate but true. However, Effi Eitam, being a member of Parliament and Cabinet, cannot dictate his views. Regardless of his views, if the government of Israel makes a deal, people like Eitam will fall in line.

``members of your beloved gop in moments of unguarded ness have also voiced support for these proposals. (dick armey on hard ball and donald rumsfeld during a press conference).``

The GOP has it`s share of idiots who are more loyal than the Israeli king.


``so if it is acceptable for these people to have say in the future of palestine, then it is also acceptable for the likes of hamas to have a seat on the table as well.``

You just proved my point. Hamas can share a table yes, but it has to be willing to negotiate with Israel. Hamas has constantly decried negotiations. Right wing Israelis may have their own views, but the state of Isreal talks in one voice in negotiations. If Hamas sends its members to confer with the PLO and the Palestenians offer one voice to the Israelis, then who can object to Hamas? Mind you, the right wing of Israel does not have a ``seat at the table``, the Israeli government does. And regardless of the personal views of the Israeli right, the GOI implicitly recognizes Palestenian statehood. Hamas should do the exact same thing if it wants to participate in dialogue. But it does not, and therefore its participation in dialogue is futile.



willful ignorance of threats posed by likes of effi eitam, avigdor lieberman (another prominent politician in the mold of eitam) and mofaz just proves my point that american administration is extremely one sided in dealing with the issue and people in the rest of the world can see through this hypocrisy.

dost mittar: glad to see you back. I also agree with stuka, and I think this war has the potential not just of freeing the Iraqis, but also of bringing some peace in the middle east. Frankly, after decades of listening to the Arab-Israeli dogfights, I would be glad to see someone put an end to their squabbles so we can focus on something else - like the millions living in poverty around the world about whom I dont see anyone writing any tragic poems.

The sentiment is laudable but it`s surely a perversion to call Rachel Corrie a ``jihadi``

temporal:
Thanks. This war is of course different not only from the first Gulf war but from all other wars. I am surprised to see our friend Stuka defend Bush on this.

#42 by dost-mittar:

welcome back:)

did you notice the difference in this gulf war?...aljazeera is their to provide another perspective...


stuka 43:

(a digressionary thought if you do not mind...ignore this for now...continue your discussion with faisal)

i have nothign against jews....it is the zionist take...specifically the `expansionsit` face of zionism that i oppose...

...show me an `official` and final map of israel

rgds,

t

Faisaluno:

You said:

``also contrary to your assertions, zionism was an european inspired movement. here is what bbc has to say about this: ``

I said:

``I even agree that the leaders, and therefore the public face of Zionism, were predominantly white.
``

Therefore, my assertion is not contrary to yours. However, as I said earlier, the result of Zionism (which I agree was a movement initiated and sponsored by European Jewry) was that middle eastern Jews moved to the nascent state of Israel. In terms of numbers, the middle eastern jews were the majority at the time of the foundation of the state of Israel.

Look, think of Pakistan as a case in point. The intellectual thrust to Pakistan came from Muslims of present day India, but population was dominated by Muslims of Present day Pakistan. In Isreal`s case, the Jews were not from Israel proper, but they were from areas which belonged to Arabs and constitute Arab lands today.

I`ll read the rest of your post at leisure as I have a meeting to go to. Regarding Gandhi, he said some wierd shite, including telling Czechs and English to not fight the Nazis. Pretty inconvenient for them. Gandhi was against partition on religious/communal terms in principle, be it Israel or Pakistan. Therefore to take him as a moral authority would not be correct if you believe in one partition but not the other.

I really don`t understand Americans, who tend to be the most self-righteous moralist people. Don`t they know that the rest of the world regards them, and not Saddam, as the outlaw and a bully? The information is out there everywhere for them to see, anyone who is supporting them, including Blair, is doing so despite massive opposition from his own people. Or do they care only when the American soldiers start returning in boldybags?

#37 faisaluno

I realize that it is convenient to quote Gandhi when it comes to pacifism and the like. But I notice you never quote Gandhi the devout hindu, Gandhi the supporter of cows, Gandhi the believer of Ram Rajya in India. Do you also support these goals? Have you given sheltered a few cows in your home? Do you believe in Ram Rajya?

As for creation of Israel being a European plot, let me ask you the following question: Who created Saudi Arabia? And who gave the bunch of thugs who currently rule it the right to do so?

The answer is well known but will never be discussed by the islamists. Saudi Arabia is a creation of the western colonialists who hand picked out some third-rate tribal leader to be its King. No such country ever existed in the region. I hope you will be joining me in demonstrating against this artificial colonialist creation, this foreign entity, and working to ensure its imminent demise.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

stuka:

effi eitam is a member of the current israeli cabinet whose party (nrp) advocates ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (there are no arabs in the cabinet despite the fact that about 20% of the pop of proper israel is arab. members of your beloved gop in moments of unguarded ness have also voiced support for these proposals. (dick armey on hard ball and donald rumsfeld during a press conference). so if it is acceptable for these people to have say in the future of palestine, then it is also acceptable for the likes of hamas to have a seat on the table as well. willful ignorance of threats posed by likes of effi eitam, avigdor lieberman (another prominent politician in the mold of eitam) and mofaz just proves my point that american administration is extremely one sided in dealing with the issue and people in the rest of the world can see through this hypocrisy.

also contrary to your assertions, zionism was an european inspired movement. here is what bbc has to say about this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2001/israel_and_palestinians/timeline/1897.stm

First Zionist Congress
The First Zionist Congress met in Basle, Switzerland, to discuss the ideas set out in Theodor Herzl`s 1896 book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State). Herzl, a Jewish journalist and writer living in Vienna, wanted Jews to have their own state - primarily as a response to European anti-Semitism.

The Congress issued the Basle Programme to establish a ``home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured by public law`` and set up the World Zionist Organisation to work for that end.

A few Zionist immigrants had already started arriving in the area before 1897. By 1903 there were some 25,000 of them, mostly from Eastern Europe. They lived alongside about half a million Arab residents in what was then part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. A second wave of about 40,000 immigrants arrived in the region between 1904 and 1914.``

Also contrary to popular belief, 1967 was started by israel. it was pre-emptive strike against egypt much like the current war. and much like the current war, israeli prime minister made the same claims about bringing democracy to palestenians. here is what bbc has to say on the start of the war:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2001/israel_and_palestinians/timeline/1967.stm

Egypt`s powerful air force was put out of action on the first day of fighting when Israeli jets bombed it on the ground in a pre-emptive strike.

The territorial gains doubled the area of land controlled by Israel. The victory heralded a new age of confidence and optimism for Israel and its supporters. ``

the statement i quoted in my previous post was from that great opponent of european colonialism: one mohands k. gandhi. statement needs to be reapted again:

``I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.``

Here are excrepts of an interview effi eitam, the israeli cabinet minister gave to an israeli newspaper:

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=143671&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

``What share will the Egyptians have to contribute?

Sinai. Egypt has to offer the territorial reserves of Sinai for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The desirable situation is that the residents of Gaza will get territory in Sinai, and will be able to receive citizenship in a sovereign Palestinian state that will be a two-lobed state. Its central lobe will be Jordan, but it will have another lobe in Sinai.``

_ _ _ ``Do you also foresee a population being drawn from Gaza to Sinai?

``Yes, definitely, without a doubt.``

_ _ _ ``And what will become of the Palestinians in Judea, Samaria and Gaza?

``They will be residents without the right to vote. We have to obtain an interim settlement regarding their status. Not on the status of the territory - on their status. They have to be given a choice between enlightened residency with us or dark citizenship in the Arab states. The Arabs in Judea and Samaria will be able to make a free choice between a situation in which they will be Palestinian citizens who are residents of Israel, or citizens of their country who reside in the Palestinian state in Jordan and Sinai.``

here is part of armey`s statement on hardball which he later retracted:

_ _ _``ARMEY: That`s right...I happened to believe that the
Palestinians should leave.

MATTHEWS: Have you ever told George Bush, the president from
your home state of Texas, that you think the Palestinians should
get up and go and leave Palestine and that`s the solution?

ARMEY: I`m probably telling him that right now.

MATTHEWS: Well, just to repeat, you believe that the
Palestinians who are now living on the West Bank should get out of
there?

ARMEY: Yes.``

More ``freedom`` in J&K. The only good thing to come out this sadness is that local people will understand better who they need ``azadi`` from...


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Kashmir-Guerrilla-Killed.html

Ex-Guerrilla Leader Assassinated in Kashmir

SRINAGAR, India (AP) -- Abdul Majid Dar, who once headed Kashmir`s biggest guerrilla group Hezb-ul Mujahedeen, was shot and killed Sunday by masked gunmen, police said.

Dar was killed in the town of Sopore, a separatist stronghold 30 miles north of Srinagar, the summer capital of India`s Jammu-Kashmir state.

Dar`s mother and sister were also injured in the shooting, a police official said on condition of anonymity.

Dar was supervising construction work at the site of his new house in Sopore when the gunmen arrived in a car and fired at him, the official said.

Police released no further details. The officer declined to comment on whether police suspect any group for the attack.

Dar was Hezb`s top commander in Indian-controlled Kashmir until two years ago, when the group`s Pakistan-based leader sacked him for offering to hold talks with the Indian government.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Tipu #34


As expected, you have come up with reasons why you and your country are special and different and others are not so special. How your viewpoint must be correct but others are not. You have not presented a single fact that contradicts my main points. In fact you are more or less openly racist about jews, just like hindu extremists are about muslims and their ``foreign origin``. How original !

Basically, you have no knowledge of history or broader issues. You are only interested in justifying your viewpoint. This is no different from the attitude of any other fanatic, nationalist or religous. It can lead nowhere.

I will not be wasting any more time on you....

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#32 Tipu

Instead of obsessing about the Balfour declaration, I would advise you to read the history of the entire middle-east and south asia. There is no difference between the creation of Israel or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or India. In each case, the departing colonial power made sordid deals with various groups to its own best advantages etc. and departed. It is deeply stupid and hypocritical and ultimately racist to single out Israel as unique in this respect.

What IS unique about the middle-east is the single minded obsession of the arabs not to compromise in any way and to focus on destruction of israel. And even more sad, to force the Palestinians to pay the price for this obsession.

Thank god that in South Asia we did not have such lunacy. For all the bad feelings, at least pre-Jihad and Kargil, India and Pakistan recognized each other as legal entities and tried to go about their business. How would it have been if India declared in 1950 that it would never be reconciled with Pakistan and that its national policy would be based on the annhilation of Pakistan???? This is what the arabs have done with israel!

Finally, there is also this obsession about european jews living in Israel. Somehow this is supposed to make the israeli state illegitimate!!

And yet Pakistanis (and many indian muslims) proclaim their ethnic and spiritual connection to Iran. Saudi Arabia etc. with great pride. The distance between Delhi and Teheran is equal to the distance between Jerusalem and many parts of southern and central europe. Why is one relationship OK and the other ``colonialism`` ???

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Talk about complete lunacy !!

[quote]
EVEN THOUGH MANY THINGS ARE GOOD IN ISRAEL JUST AS IN AMERICA & NOT ALL ISRAELI OR AMERICANS ARE CONDEMNED BUT SELECTIVELY SOMTHING IN BOTH THESE COUNTRIES IS CAUSE OF 70% OF INTERNATIONAL PROBLEMS OF SUICIDE BOMBING GULF WAR TERRORISM
[end-quote]

Sure, whatever. Just remain steadfast in your belief that Israel and America are the source of all problems in the world.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

temporal #24 I think it is clear that you and I agree on the ends, i.e. the need for muslims to fight islamic extremism.
And we even agree on some of the means: i.e. interpreting the Quran based on what our own common sense tells us. Not based on what some mullah tells us. That is fine.
I nevertheless must beg to differ on your use of the word jihad when what you really mean is nonviolent protest against oppression, and for the following reasons:

a. It implies that it is OK to carry nonviolent protest to the point of dying. If that is what Ms. Rachel Corrie did (and I doubt anyway that her intention was to lose her life in the process of protesting), then she in effect committed suicide. And as you know the Quran explicitly prohibits suicide. My reading of the Quran is that sacrificing one`s life is permitted only in the extreme case of saving someone else`s life. No lives were threatened here. While not wishing to sound flippant about the death of someone so young, and while applauding her defense for the underdogs in the Arab-Israeli dog fight (and that it basically what it is, with no heroes on either side), the sad fact remains that Ms. Corrie died saving a house from being torn down.

b. You approving us of the word ``jihad`` gets the mullah off the hook. So, if you MUST use the word, then at least put the mullah back on the hook by explicitly condemning the murderous actions they commit in the name of jihad. In my usual helpful manner, I shall even provide you with a list that you can attach next time you feel tempted to use the word ``jihad`` instead of something more explicit (like self-defense, or peaceful resistance, or socio-economic progresss):

1. 9/11 was NOT jihad. It was a barbarous act that killed three thousand innocent people from all over the world who were going about their business. AND it was carried out by a bunch of islamic extremists an no one else (as too many muslims do not have the character to admit, despite clear evidence).
2. Kashmir is NOT jihad. The lives of Kashmiris are not being threatened. If someone wishes to carry out a jihad, then the time and place would have been Gujrat when the mobs were attacking muslims, or Godhra when the mobs were attacking hindus: since the purpose would have been to save lives (muslim OR hindu - respect for life does not stop with muslim life alone). That would be jihad. Not creating mischief in other people`s land.

So, by the time you are done clarifying what you mean, you might as well just say what you mean (i.e. peaceful resistance), rather than trying to rehabilitate a word that is beyond repair. Islam is substance, not words.

T #24 :

well said.

emotionalizing religion and letting it thus dictate terms brings false notions of arrogance.

Faisaluno:

``have you heard of effi eitam? do you know what position he holds in the israeli government? do you know what is his solution to the palestenian problem?``

I honestly have no idea. I would be willing to learn.


``and can you please explain to me how blond hair blue eyed people landed in the middle of middle east?``

Faisaluno, I never said that there was NO migration from Europe at all. In fact, a major portion of the European Jewry that survived the Holocaust immigrated, either to America or to Israel. I even agree that the leaders, and therefore the public face of Zionism, were predominantly white.

Having said that, I mantain that the majority population of Israel in 1948 was consituted of Jews who were from the middle east. Countries such as Lebanoan, Egypt, Syria etc had a Jewish diaspora which moved to Israel. My point is that there was a two way transfer of population, and Israel does not constitute entirely of foreigners from Europe. At this point, thanks to immigration of Russian Jews, the demographic balance has shifted.

`` who do you think spoke these words? ``

I don`t know. Mind you, I would have been less critical of Arab suicide bombings if they had limited themselves to the occupied territories, and at most to settlers and military. However, they cannot claim a moral high point after targetting Haifa, Tel Aviv etc.

Secondly, my post was directed less at Arab methods and more at Arab demands. It was a chronological narrative of how Conservative opinion shifted from being neutral (in the sense of balance between Israel and Arab interests) to now being heavily pro Israel.

Since the birth of Israel to the 70S, Arab perspective of ``pro-Israel`` was based on a country`s acceptance of the state of Israel. The United States, in good faith,, tried to be neutral while mantaining support for the existence of Israel. The 1956 Suez Crisis being a case in point. It is a different matter that Arab perceptions painted America as pro Israel.

The point you make of American support for regressive Arab regimes is valid, but in that case the motivation was winning the cold war and getting oil rather than Israeli interests alone.

#23 faisaluno

Its good to see you are an open racist about your views:

[quote]
and can you please explain to me how blond hair blue eyed people landed in the middle of middle east? who do you think spoke these words?
[end-quote]

OK, here is my equivalent in India: Can you explain to me what all these people who claim descent from Turks, Afghans, Arabs and Persians are doing in India? Shouldn`t they be sent back where they came from???

In other words, your argument is exactly the same as Modi and Thackeray. Enjoy the fine company ! Maybe you should meet your soul brothers sometime?

Tipu:

``Factions like Nidal & Habbash George are marauders who may want settlement of Palestenian but a knowledgeable person knows it is Arafat &Hanan & plo who are negotiating``

I acknowledge that rhetoric is different from reality. I also accept your point about Habash and Nidal being in that category. In my post I said:

``the stated aim of Hamas, Islamic Jihad now (and Black September and PFLP and Abu Nidal etc in the 70S) was and remains the detruction of Israel proper``

Remember, the PFLP was always allied with Fatah, the fighting wing of Arafat`s PLO. I repeat, upto the 1973 war, the Palestenian resistance believed that Israel could and would be destroyed. That changed after the war, and comprehensive defeat. Not before.

Even now, you say that Arafat is the main negotiater. Now, at least based on the knowledge that is in public domain, and beyond which neither of us have access, the main sticking points in Oslo were Jeruasalem and the return of refugees. The latter will change the demographic balance of Israel, thereby achieving it`s destruction.

Also, please remember that Hamas and Islamic Jihad did not join the Oslo negotiations because their stated aim is still the destruction of Israel. In terms of public support, the Palestenians support Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah to a far greater extent than the PLO. So Israel will only waste it`s time negotiating with Arafat.

However, I digress. The point of my original post was this. If the Palestenians had accepted the partition in 1948, they could have lived in dignity. Again and again they chose war, in 1967 and 1973, and the purpose of the war was the utter and complete destruction of a people. Therefore, if the Israelis do not shy away from brutalizing the Arabs, it is a result of what has happened less than a generation ago.

pmishra2 #15:

jehad is misunderstood…within and without islam:

---in pakistan it is a carte blanche to come to the aid of muslims worldwide…

---the ROW sees it justifiably as acts of terrorism

---my own views have been elaborated in the past (if you care: [http://63.194.130.82/cgi-bin/show_article.cgi?aid=00001128&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&page=1&chapter=1] in that sense Rachel Corrie was a jehadi

---in addition to above i have stated unequivocally i am against loss of life through acts of terror, be it by individuals, organizations or states ...how many others you know here have been that explicit?

rgds,

t

taimurmalik

Your post speak volumes about your good nature and innocence but I am not sure about theirs.

stuka:

have you heard of effi eitam? do you know what position he holds in the israeli government? do you know what is his solution to the palestenian problem? and can you please explain to me how blond hair blue eyed people landed in the middle of middle east? who do you think spoke these words?

``I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.``

Tahmed #2: and nazarhayatkhan #7:

islam has been hijacked by the ultra orthodox because of this very attitude…we…the silent, moderate muslims…by default (and not by design) have let them bring misery and scorn on us…it is about time we stand up and repudiate their ultra orthodox interpretation of this religion…

…why cannot i have my different interpretation?…if they go ahead and quote me ayahs of Qur’an, exhorting the believers to take up arms in the cause of justice…i will come back equally forcefully and refute it…in my humble view they can do so only if justice and harmony prevails in their society…only then can they exhort others to join their jehad…and since most…if not all muslim countries and societies lag behind…way behind... when it comes to social justice and peace and harmony and rights for their citizens…their call for any extra-territorial jehad is null and void…

…‘…Let us lose this small battle to the mullahs, and try to win the bigger battle’…you say…sorry bud, that time is past when we should give in to these ultra orthodox hijackers…please reconsider…to reclaim moderation we should adopt their tactics…we shall not give in an inch…
draw a line…no more terror…no more bamboozling in the name of religion…

rgds,

t