International Law: Applicability and Real Politik in the Middle East
Nisreen Zain July 19, 2004
#72 Posted by echoboom on August 5, 2004 7:22:26 am
Ugly Westerners despoil again
By Robert McCormick
graduate student, journalism
When I first arrived 15 years ago in Bukavu, an African city situated on the magnificent Lake Kivu in eastern Zaire, I immediately harbored mixed feelings about my presence.
I had come to Bukavu for seven weeks to enhance my paltry French, which would be the means of communication at my future Peace Corps post in Cameroon, another African country. While language-learning in Bukavu seemed harmless enough, I always
wrestled with the murky issue of what purpose hordes of Westerners really served in exotic locales like Bukavu.
Today, Bukavu and other sites around Lake Kivu are experiencing great upheaval. Ethnic groups in the region are battling each other, with no end in sight to the fighting. Americans and other westerners can read all about this tragedy and smugly blame it on the intractable attitudes of those Africans.
If only it were so simple.
For almost 40 years now, numerous Westerners, including Americans, Belgians, English, French and Germans, have inhabited Bukavu, Bujumbura, Goma, Kigali and other sites involved in the present conflict. Stated intentions of those Westerners may have
appeared admirable: Let`s help the undeveloped and impoverished residents of this area improve their lives. Good intentions, however, have failed to satisfy actual needs.
Ever present consultants lectured locals about new methods of agricultural and industrial production, whether suitable for the region or not. Peace Corps Volunteers and their equivalents from other countries taught science, mathematics and other subjects,
without linking that knowledge to concrete and practical goals.
Frequently frustrated by their failure to improve social conditions, many Westerners developed a more pragmatic view of what they could accomplish. A reverse process began in translating Western largess into substantive benefits. In many cases, it was not the locals who benefited from foreign assistance; it was the foreigners themselves.
Aid workers often collected large salaries with substantial rewards for deprivations suffered by living in a place like Bukavu, which is a truly beautiful site. A donor country, like the United States, also reaped benefits by allocating foreign aid to purchases of goods from the donor country. The sight of cumbersome American trucks mired in rugged African terrain never made much sense except in the accounts of the United States manufacturer.
At times, foreign aid propped up local elites, who were then expected to follow the party line of the donor country. Usually this required the host country to open its doors to Western businesses, which could then profit from these new markets.
The Western presence in the Lake Kivu region created a sense of privilege. The mere fact that I was from the great land of America meant residents would offer me gifts and other items in recognition of my elevated, but contrived, status. Many locals, though, felt resentment toward this favored position of Westerners. For instance, one young man expressed contempt that all good tennis shoes went to the West for sale there, while Africans could buy only second-rate products.
For all the efforts of hundreds of Westerners, no apparent success has resulted in constructing a stable, multi-ethnic society in the tormented area around Lake Kivu. From a Western viewpoint it would be easy to slot Bukavu and its environs into the too-hard basket and simply forget about this area. That might even be an ethical option if Westerners had not already massively intervened there.
Recent events occurring in Zaire, Burundi and Rwanda need to be viewed in connection with the Western presence. Without that presence, it is difficult to imagine that the situation could be as horrific as it is now. Tribal rivalries in this region existed before
Westerners arrived. But not until Western intervention has the carnage been so widespread and profound.
By ensconcing themselves around Lake Kivu with little regard for regional attitudes and conditions, Westerners have found it difficult to improve significantly the lives of local residents. Instead, our weaponry, cynical politics and vulture-like business practices have provided even more fertile ground for conflict than had we never descended upon the peoples of this region.
Distrust of Westerners may hinder any significant involvement in negotiating peace among warring factions. However, the West must demonstrate that it wants to build a constructive, genuine and non-partisan alliance with the region.
No matter how treacherous the existing situation at Lake Kivu appears, the United States and other western countries have an obligation to assist in repairing the damage.
By Robert McCormick
graduate student, journalism
When I first arrived 15 years ago in Bukavu, an African city situated on the magnificent Lake Kivu in eastern Zaire, I immediately harbored mixed feelings about my presence.
I had come to Bukavu for seven weeks to enhance my paltry French, which would be the means of communication at my future Peace Corps post in Cameroon, another African country. While language-learning in Bukavu seemed harmless enough, I always
wrestled with the murky issue of what purpose hordes of Westerners really served in exotic locales like Bukavu.
Today, Bukavu and other sites around Lake Kivu are experiencing great upheaval. Ethnic groups in the region are battling each other, with no end in sight to the fighting. Americans and other westerners can read all about this tragedy and smugly blame it on the intractable attitudes of those Africans.
If only it were so simple.
For almost 40 years now, numerous Westerners, including Americans, Belgians, English, French and Germans, have inhabited Bukavu, Bujumbura, Goma, Kigali and other sites involved in the present conflict. Stated intentions of those Westerners may have
appeared admirable: Let`s help the undeveloped and impoverished residents of this area improve their lives. Good intentions, however, have failed to satisfy actual needs.
Ever present consultants lectured locals about new methods of agricultural and industrial production, whether suitable for the region or not. Peace Corps Volunteers and their equivalents from other countries taught science, mathematics and other subjects,
without linking that knowledge to concrete and practical goals.
Frequently frustrated by their failure to improve social conditions, many Westerners developed a more pragmatic view of what they could accomplish. A reverse process began in translating Western largess into substantive benefits. In many cases, it was not the locals who benefited from foreign assistance; it was the foreigners themselves.
Aid workers often collected large salaries with substantial rewards for deprivations suffered by living in a place like Bukavu, which is a truly beautiful site. A donor country, like the United States, also reaped benefits by allocating foreign aid to purchases of goods from the donor country. The sight of cumbersome American trucks mired in rugged African terrain never made much sense except in the accounts of the United States manufacturer.
At times, foreign aid propped up local elites, who were then expected to follow the party line of the donor country. Usually this required the host country to open its doors to Western businesses, which could then profit from these new markets.
The Western presence in the Lake Kivu region created a sense of privilege. The mere fact that I was from the great land of America meant residents would offer me gifts and other items in recognition of my elevated, but contrived, status. Many locals, though, felt resentment toward this favored position of Westerners. For instance, one young man expressed contempt that all good tennis shoes went to the West for sale there, while Africans could buy only second-rate products.
For all the efforts of hundreds of Westerners, no apparent success has resulted in constructing a stable, multi-ethnic society in the tormented area around Lake Kivu. From a Western viewpoint it would be easy to slot Bukavu and its environs into the too-hard basket and simply forget about this area. That might even be an ethical option if Westerners had not already massively intervened there.
Recent events occurring in Zaire, Burundi and Rwanda need to be viewed in connection with the Western presence. Without that presence, it is difficult to imagine that the situation could be as horrific as it is now. Tribal rivalries in this region existed before
Westerners arrived. But not until Western intervention has the carnage been so widespread and profound.
By ensconcing themselves around Lake Kivu with little regard for regional attitudes and conditions, Westerners have found it difficult to improve significantly the lives of local residents. Instead, our weaponry, cynical politics and vulture-like business practices have provided even more fertile ground for conflict than had we never descended upon the peoples of this region.
Distrust of Westerners may hinder any significant involvement in negotiating peace among warring factions. However, the West must demonstrate that it wants to build a constructive, genuine and non-partisan alliance with the region.
No matter how treacherous the existing situation at Lake Kivu appears, the United States and other western countries have an obligation to assist in repairing the damage.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#71 Posted by harish_hyd on July 29, 2004 7:13:05 am
Yeah, I knew you`d back off when confronted with facts, esp. the bit about candidates being asked to sign the undertaking in AJK.
#70 Posted by taqat-e-parvaaz on July 27, 2004 9:33:11 pm
i`m not going to argue this anymore. esp. in the context of this being a completely retarded argument. i hope you agree.
#69 Posted by harish_hyd on July 26, 2004 9:14:49 pm
#65 by taqat-e-parvaaz
[mr. `hashish`, if you were to bring something about the `pakistan connection` from a more neutral source and not outlookindia (hahaa) i would have believed it.]
You`re more deluded than I thought if you believe the world press is not talking about Pakistan`s connection with 9/11. What about the 9/11 commission? You find that ridiculous too? Only a deluded Paki would think the way you do.
[were this true, the US would slap sanctions on pakistan before it could say, oh, i dont know, `kargil`. i suggest you watch `farenheit 9/11` by michael moore. if then you still believe pakistan has links with muhammad atta then you obviously heeded my advice to stick something in your pipe and smoke it!]
Gen. Mahmood Ahmad wired $100,000 to Muhammad Atta just days before 9/11. I suppose only Pakis do not know about this. Or are they living in denial?
[i suggest you worry about hinduland and your internal communal strife before worrying about fictional links between pakistan and 9/11.]
Unlike you, I will not deny India has problems. Acceptance is the first step to redemption. The sooner you realize it, the better it is for you.
[no, bill clinton and anthony zinni are not stupid, mr. hashish. nawaz sharif was kept in the dark until the start of the operation.]
Hahaha, so you mean to say Musharraf is lying? You just shot yourself in the foot.
[perhaps he figured it out once india went crying to the US like a little girl that its troops were getting it up the ass by mujahideen and army troops. dont you agree?]
I thought it was the Paki troops that were fleeing once the Bofors howitzers pounded their sangars.
[hmm, i also seem to remember the indian air force trying to be brave and then losing several pilots to anti aircraft guns of pakistan?]
Unlike the Indian pilots, Paki pilots didn`t have the testicular fortitude to even take to the skies for fear of being blown up by the Indian guns.
[yeah, you`re right. that does sound like the side that lost more personnel. `three wars and not an inch to show for it.` unlike india pakistan does not fight for territory. it fights to uphold the plight of those kashmiris that are being subjected to the worse oppression by your army machinery.]
If what you say is true, why does every candidate standing even for the local body elections in ``Azad`` (haha) Kashmir have to sign an undertaking stating that he/she fully supported Kashmir`s accession to Pakistan and would work whole-heartedly towards achieving that?
[pakistan showed in kargil that it could get into india and catch india with its `dhoti` down. way to be alert!]
And got its ass handed to it on a platter. India showed even when caught napping, it could stick it up the enemy`s ass when it decided to wake up.
[if your army was not raping young kashmiri women, pakistan too would never have to fight kargils. unfortunately, it seems this is the only language india would ever understand. if pakistan has lost credibility, ask your government to hold a plebiscite in kashmir and let the kashmiris decide. according to you they would happily stay with india and continue being raped by ugly indian army personnel.]
First hold a plebiscite in South Waziristan. We can worry about Kashmir later. Charity, after all, begins at home.
[mr. `hashish`, if you were to bring something about the `pakistan connection` from a more neutral source and not outlookindia (hahaa) i would have believed it.]
You`re more deluded than I thought if you believe the world press is not talking about Pakistan`s connection with 9/11. What about the 9/11 commission? You find that ridiculous too? Only a deluded Paki would think the way you do.
[were this true, the US would slap sanctions on pakistan before it could say, oh, i dont know, `kargil`. i suggest you watch `farenheit 9/11` by michael moore. if then you still believe pakistan has links with muhammad atta then you obviously heeded my advice to stick something in your pipe and smoke it!]
Gen. Mahmood Ahmad wired $100,000 to Muhammad Atta just days before 9/11. I suppose only Pakis do not know about this. Or are they living in denial?
[i suggest you worry about hinduland and your internal communal strife before worrying about fictional links between pakistan and 9/11.]
Unlike you, I will not deny India has problems. Acceptance is the first step to redemption. The sooner you realize it, the better it is for you.
[no, bill clinton and anthony zinni are not stupid, mr. hashish. nawaz sharif was kept in the dark until the start of the operation.]
Hahaha, so you mean to say Musharraf is lying? You just shot yourself in the foot.
[perhaps he figured it out once india went crying to the US like a little girl that its troops were getting it up the ass by mujahideen and army troops. dont you agree?]
I thought it was the Paki troops that were fleeing once the Bofors howitzers pounded their sangars.
[hmm, i also seem to remember the indian air force trying to be brave and then losing several pilots to anti aircraft guns of pakistan?]
Unlike the Indian pilots, Paki pilots didn`t have the testicular fortitude to even take to the skies for fear of being blown up by the Indian guns.
[yeah, you`re right. that does sound like the side that lost more personnel. `three wars and not an inch to show for it.` unlike india pakistan does not fight for territory. it fights to uphold the plight of those kashmiris that are being subjected to the worse oppression by your army machinery.]
If what you say is true, why does every candidate standing even for the local body elections in ``Azad`` (haha) Kashmir have to sign an undertaking stating that he/she fully supported Kashmir`s accession to Pakistan and would work whole-heartedly towards achieving that?
[pakistan showed in kargil that it could get into india and catch india with its `dhoti` down. way to be alert!]
And got its ass handed to it on a platter. India showed even when caught napping, it could stick it up the enemy`s ass when it decided to wake up.
[if your army was not raping young kashmiri women, pakistan too would never have to fight kargils. unfortunately, it seems this is the only language india would ever understand. if pakistan has lost credibility, ask your government to hold a plebiscite in kashmir and let the kashmiris decide. according to you they would happily stay with india and continue being raped by ugly indian army personnel.]
First hold a plebiscite in South Waziristan. We can worry about Kashmir later. Charity, after all, begins at home.
#68 Posted by stuka on July 26, 2004 8:49:54 pm
#67
So India got its butt kicked for two months and then Nawaz ran to US and agreed to pull out troops.
Well, can`t blame ya. Guess you also think that Kashmir would be handed over to Pakistan??
So India got its butt kicked for two months and then Nawaz ran to US and agreed to pull out troops.
Well, can`t blame ya. Guess you also think that Kashmir would be handed over to Pakistan??
#67 Posted by taqat-e-parvaaz on July 26, 2004 7:04:48 pm
`If that were true, it would have been Vajpayee and not Nawaz who would have run to Washington on the 4th of July, a busy day on any president`s calendar....You seriously expect us to believe Nawaz begged Clinton for a meeting in Washington so he could hear Indian pleas for mercy.... `
..you forget my friend that it was july 4th that nawaz flew to the US. the mujahideen had been inside kargil since early may. thats two whole months before pakistan backed down. however, the first thing india did when it finally did realize that it had been caught sleeping was send memo after memo to the US asking for help. interestingly, at that point the US didnt give a shit really. the BBC reported that it asked Pakistan to call back the mujahideen in June. the fighting continued for another whole month in which we all know what happened to indian security forces...
..you forget my friend that it was july 4th that nawaz flew to the US. the mujahideen had been inside kargil since early may. thats two whole months before pakistan backed down. however, the first thing india did when it finally did realize that it had been caught sleeping was send memo after memo to the US asking for help. interestingly, at that point the US didnt give a shit really. the BBC reported that it asked Pakistan to call back the mujahideen in June. the fighting continued for another whole month in which we all know what happened to indian security forces...
#66 Posted by arjun_m on July 26, 2004 5:17:34 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#65 Posted by taqat-e-parvaaz on July 26, 2004 12:36:19 pm
mr. `hashish`, if you were to bring something about the `pakistan connection` from a more neutral source and not outlookindia (hahaa) i would have believed it. this is the most ridiculous piece of information i have read in weeks. thanks for the amusement though. were this true, the US would slap sanctions on pakistan before it could say, oh, i dont know, `kargil`. i suggest you watch `farenheit 9/11` by michael moore. if then you still believe pakistan has links with muhammad atta then you obviously heeded my advice to stick something in your pipe and smoke it! i suggest you worry about hinduland and your internal communal strife before worrying about fictional links between pakistan and 9/11. you say my posts are rhetoric, but then claim, as most illlogical hardline RSS activists would, that pakistan too has seen gujrats.
no, bill clinton and anthony zinni are not stupid, mr. hashish. nawaz sharif was kept in the dark until the start of the operation. perhaps he figured it out once india went crying to the US like a little girl that its troops were getting it up the ass by mujahideen and army troops. dont you agree? hmm, i also seem to remember the indian air force trying to be brave and then losing several pilots to anti aircraft guns of pakistan? yeah, you`re right. that does sound like the side that lost more personnel. `three wars and not an inch to show for it.` unlike india pakistan does not fight for territory. it fights to uphold the plight of those kashmiris that are being subjected to the worse oppression by your army machinery. pakistan showed in kargil that it could get into india and catch india with its `dhoti` down. way to be alert! if your army was not raping young kashmiri women, pakistan too would never have to fight kargils. unfortunately, it seems this is the only language india would ever understand. if pakistan has lost credibility, ask your government to hold a plebiscite in kashmir and let the kashmiris decide. according to you they would happily stay with india and continue being raped by ugly indian army personnel.
#64 Posted by harish_hyd on July 25, 2004 10:42:14 pm
#62 by taqat-e-parvaaz
[anyone who believes nawaz sharif, who himself admits he was kept in the dark about the entire operation, and his figures of pakistani deaths is even more stupid than him.]
Oh so, Bill Clinton, Anthony Zinny and Bruce Reidel, who say Nawaz Sharif flew into Washington begging them to ask India to stop attacking Pakistan`s fleeing troops are stupid!
#56 by taqat-e-parvaaz
[Remember how mujahideen and SSG commandos stole your land from you and rained down heavy mortars and artillery on your heads for three months.]
For once, I agree with you. The SSG commandos stole our land. They couldn`t invade it like any self-respecting Army would do.
#52 by taqat-e-parvaaz
[eat this. never mess with the pakistan army.]
Why would India mess with the Paki Army when it has done a fabulous job all by itself? Three wars and not an inch of land to show for it.
#51 by taqat-e-parvaaz
[and yes, mrs. harish, the awacs that india bought were lousy. the only reason pakistan makes a fuss is in the hopes that the US panics and blocks the sale.]
You`re contradicting yourself my friend. If it were as lousy as you claim they are, Pakistan would have been more than happy at the sale.
[pakistan has just recently purchased a state of the art AWACS from Sweden. so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.]
Oooooh!!!! The AWACS that Pakistan bought from Sweden are state-of-the-art, and the AWACS that India bought from Israel are lousy. Nice logic mate.
[and anyways, if india considers itself so technologically superior, it never forgets that any misadventure will result in a whole arsenal of Ghauris and Shaheens raining on the crowded and poverty stricken streets of calcutta and madras.]
Only, India will still exist. But Pakistan won`t.
#50 by taqat-e-parvaaz
[mr harish, if you are implying that pakistan has seen ethnic cleansing on the scale of gujrat and bombay than you`re severely deluded. i severely doubt that hindus in india are more unsafe than their muslim counterparts in india. pakistan will never see the rise of crazed fanatics like the RSS, the bajrang dal, and the shiv sena. sorry. never will hindus in pakistan be dragged out into the streets, beaten, and chopped into pieces. never in pakistan will hindu women be gang raped by muslim men and then stabbed repeatedly. never will pregnant women have their fetuses ripped out and killed violently. hurray for india`s secularism! these are all incidents that have occured in the past gujrat.]
No, I never said Pakistan has seen an ethnic cleansing on the scale of Gujarat. If anything, it has seen worse. And if you think you are being smart by substituting rhetoric for fact, let me assure you I can see through it.
[its a known fact that pakistan has a considerable advantage in this situation, but has foolishly not been able to leverage it properly.]
That Pakistan has not been able to take advantage is not for want of trying. Pakistan has tried it all, but is not an inch closer to Kashmir. And worse, it has lost all credibility after the elections in J&K last year. All it can now do is clutch at the crumbs it hopes India might throw its way.
[ha! who the hell is india fooling?]
It looks like you`re one helluva frustrated man.
[anyone who believes nawaz sharif, who himself admits he was kept in the dark about the entire operation, and his figures of pakistani deaths is even more stupid than him.]
Oh so, Bill Clinton, Anthony Zinny and Bruce Reidel, who say Nawaz Sharif flew into Washington begging them to ask India to stop attacking Pakistan`s fleeing troops are stupid!
#56 by taqat-e-parvaaz
[Remember how mujahideen and SSG commandos stole your land from you and rained down heavy mortars and artillery on your heads for three months.]
For once, I agree with you. The SSG commandos stole our land. They couldn`t invade it like any self-respecting Army would do.
#52 by taqat-e-parvaaz
[eat this. never mess with the pakistan army.]
Why would India mess with the Paki Army when it has done a fabulous job all by itself? Three wars and not an inch of land to show for it.
#51 by taqat-e-parvaaz
[and yes, mrs. harish, the awacs that india bought were lousy. the only reason pakistan makes a fuss is in the hopes that the US panics and blocks the sale.]
You`re contradicting yourself my friend. If it were as lousy as you claim they are, Pakistan would have been more than happy at the sale.
[pakistan has just recently purchased a state of the art AWACS from Sweden. so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.]
Oooooh!!!! The AWACS that Pakistan bought from Sweden are state-of-the-art, and the AWACS that India bought from Israel are lousy. Nice logic mate.
[and anyways, if india considers itself so technologically superior, it never forgets that any misadventure will result in a whole arsenal of Ghauris and Shaheens raining on the crowded and poverty stricken streets of calcutta and madras.]
Only, India will still exist. But Pakistan won`t.
#50 by taqat-e-parvaaz
[mr harish, if you are implying that pakistan has seen ethnic cleansing on the scale of gujrat and bombay than you`re severely deluded. i severely doubt that hindus in india are more unsafe than their muslim counterparts in india. pakistan will never see the rise of crazed fanatics like the RSS, the bajrang dal, and the shiv sena. sorry. never will hindus in pakistan be dragged out into the streets, beaten, and chopped into pieces. never in pakistan will hindu women be gang raped by muslim men and then stabbed repeatedly. never will pregnant women have their fetuses ripped out and killed violently. hurray for india`s secularism! these are all incidents that have occured in the past gujrat.]
No, I never said Pakistan has seen an ethnic cleansing on the scale of Gujarat. If anything, it has seen worse. And if you think you are being smart by substituting rhetoric for fact, let me assure you I can see through it.
[its a known fact that pakistan has a considerable advantage in this situation, but has foolishly not been able to leverage it properly.]
That Pakistan has not been able to take advantage is not for want of trying. Pakistan has tried it all, but is not an inch closer to Kashmir. And worse, it has lost all credibility after the elections in J&K last year. All it can now do is clutch at the crumbs it hopes India might throw its way.
[ha! who the hell is india fooling?]
It looks like you`re one helluva frustrated man.
#63 Posted by harish_hyd on July 25, 2004 10:42:14 pm
Mr.taaqat, look what this Labour MP has to say about Pakiland. Stick this in your pipe and smoke it mate.
Excerpts:
``Significantly, Sheikh is also the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan`s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. It is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. Why not?
Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to ``retire`` by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn`t the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?``
``Daniel Ellsberg, the former US defence department whistleblower who has accompanied Edmonds in court, has stated: ``It seems to me quite plausible that Pakistan was quite involved in this ... To say Pakistan is, to me, to say CIA because ... it`s hard to say that the ISI knew something that the CIA had no knowledge of.````
``Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate select committee on intelligence, has said: ``I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted, not just in financing ... by a sovereign foreign government.````
Excerpts:
``Significantly, Sheikh is also the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan`s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. It is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. Why not?
Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to ``retire`` by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn`t the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?``
``Daniel Ellsberg, the former US defence department whistleblower who has accompanied Edmonds in court, has stated: ``It seems to me quite plausible that Pakistan was quite involved in this ... To say Pakistan is, to me, to say CIA because ... it`s hard to say that the ISI knew something that the CIA had no knowledge of.````
``Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate select committee on intelligence, has said: ``I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted, not just in financing ... by a sovereign foreign government.````
#62 Posted by taqat-e-parvaaz on July 25, 2004 5:07:47 pm
GREAT comeback arjun. you`ve checkmated me now. anyone who believes nawaz sharif, who himself admits he was kept in the dark about the entire operation, and his figures of pakistani deaths is even more stupid than him. the only reason kargil is not pakistans is because of leaders like nawaz sharif, who gave in timidly to US threats. and yes, your complete lack of reasoning in this argument shows itself again. how is it possible for an opponent who is sitting on top of you in mountains to lose more soldiers than the side getting mortars and missiles up their skinny asses below you? you`re obviously smarter than i thought. and i`m the one who`s deluded? hey arjun, are you bal thackarey in disguise? or are you narendra modi?
#61 Posted by Mukhlis on July 25, 2004 9:20:10 am
Shall we try to get back to the main subject of the article –Palestine- rather than drag Kargil in? :-)
“#29 by nikki7777 on July 21, 2004 6:12pm PT
# 27....Mukhlis.....All`s fair in love and war..The jews were able to turn back the clock almost two millenia and what did the palestinians do about it???...Well, the results are there for all to see......”
nikki7777.. if all’s fair in love & war.. and if Jews can turn back the clock 1800 years and occupy the land of their dreams (even though most of the Jews now living in Israel are of European origin & had never been associated with the land of Palestine in the first place) then why ask Palestinians to stop trying after only 5 decades? If all’s fair in love & war.. then I guess Palestinians have the right to wage war any which way they want…till they achieve victory too.. be it 5 decades .. 2 millenia… or 5 millenia. Would it make sense to say to a Palestinian “Yup… Jews are one determined lot heh.. got back to Palestine after 1800 years. But, hey, why don’t you Palestinians just give up on getting back to your homes, even though it’s only been 5 decades of struggle. Stop wasting time and effort & blood, it’s not gonna help much”.
The Jews didn’t let go of the dream for 1800 years but the Palestinians should understand the “reality” only after 5 decades and let go of their right to live in the land where they and countless of their generations lived?
“#33 by rahulmal on July 21, 2004 9:50pm PT
Mukhlis has posted some figures about Israeli army/militia in `48. So, 600,000 settlers were able to field an army twice the size of armies of 60 million Arabs...doesn`t show the Arabs in a very good light.”
Rahulmal.. the figures I posted were to show that the Jewish Army in 1948 was not a rag tag army as opined by you in your post #17. My post was just to show that the popular perception of a rag tag army is not entirely accurate. The ability of the Zionists to be able to field an army greater than their adversaries is a separate topic. But may be a few words on that anyway.
I guess Jews were a more motivated lot than their adversaries because their age old dream of a separate homeland was about to come true. Whereas the Arabs’ motivation was not as great as the Jews. “The Jewish immigrants were in Palestine because they had chosen to go there in pursuit of an ideal; the Palestinian Arabs, however lived there because they and countless generations before them were born there, and therefore did not have the same political awareness and pioneering motivation.”(1)
Besides, there were other factors, e.g. a lot of Jews who made up the Israeli fighting forces in 1948 were WW-2 vets who had served on the Allied side. There were 136,043 Jews who volunteered their services for the British Military during WW-2. These recruits eventually formed the basis of the Israeli armed forces.
“#33 by rahulmal on July 21, 2004 9:50pm PT
Jews lived in harmony with Arabs like Paki Hindus live in harmony with Muslims in today`s Pakistan...as if there are a plethora of options.”
As mentioned by taqat-e-parvaaz in post#35, many a times when Jews were persecuted in Europe, they found solace in Muslim countries. There was no large scale killing of Jews in Muslim lands as opposed to what happened in Europe. It’s only after the creation of Israel that things have come to this stage. “The Ottoman Empire, of which Palestine was a part at the time of Balfour Declaration, had, over the centuries, provided refuge for Jews fleeing from persecution, including the Sephardim who fled the reconquista and the inquisition in Spain in the fifteenth century.” (2)
“#33 by rahulmal on July 21, 2004 9:50pm PT
“I agree that coming of Ashkenazi Zionist Jews from Europe was bad, but not worse than coming of assortment of Turks, Persians and Arabs in India.”
There is, however, a vast difference between the scale of immigration represented by those seeking refuge from persecution, and the calculated usurpation and ethnic cleansing of an inhabited land…. A great deal of land was acquired by Jews by perfectly legitimate means, and this is not disputed, but the purchase of land in another country does not entitle one to establish one’s own state therein.(2)
(1) “The Palestine Triangle” by Nicholas Bethell
(2) ``The Palestine-Israeli Conflict`` by Dan Cohn-Sherbok & Dawoud El-Alami
“#29 by nikki7777 on July 21, 2004 6:12pm PT
# 27....Mukhlis.....All`s fair in love and war..The jews were able to turn back the clock almost two millenia and what did the palestinians do about it???...Well, the results are there for all to see......”
nikki7777.. if all’s fair in love & war.. and if Jews can turn back the clock 1800 years and occupy the land of their dreams (even though most of the Jews now living in Israel are of European origin & had never been associated with the land of Palestine in the first place) then why ask Palestinians to stop trying after only 5 decades? If all’s fair in love & war.. then I guess Palestinians have the right to wage war any which way they want…till they achieve victory too.. be it 5 decades .. 2 millenia… or 5 millenia. Would it make sense to say to a Palestinian “Yup… Jews are one determined lot heh.. got back to Palestine after 1800 years. But, hey, why don’t you Palestinians just give up on getting back to your homes, even though it’s only been 5 decades of struggle. Stop wasting time and effort & blood, it’s not gonna help much”.
The Jews didn’t let go of the dream for 1800 years but the Palestinians should understand the “reality” only after 5 decades and let go of their right to live in the land where they and countless of their generations lived?
“#33 by rahulmal on July 21, 2004 9:50pm PT
Mukhlis has posted some figures about Israeli army/militia in `48. So, 600,000 settlers were able to field an army twice the size of armies of 60 million Arabs...doesn`t show the Arabs in a very good light.”
Rahulmal.. the figures I posted were to show that the Jewish Army in 1948 was not a rag tag army as opined by you in your post #17. My post was just to show that the popular perception of a rag tag army is not entirely accurate. The ability of the Zionists to be able to field an army greater than their adversaries is a separate topic. But may be a few words on that anyway.
I guess Jews were a more motivated lot than their adversaries because their age old dream of a separate homeland was about to come true. Whereas the Arabs’ motivation was not as great as the Jews. “The Jewish immigrants were in Palestine because they had chosen to go there in pursuit of an ideal; the Palestinian Arabs, however lived there because they and countless generations before them were born there, and therefore did not have the same political awareness and pioneering motivation.”(1)
Besides, there were other factors, e.g. a lot of Jews who made up the Israeli fighting forces in 1948 were WW-2 vets who had served on the Allied side. There were 136,043 Jews who volunteered their services for the British Military during WW-2. These recruits eventually formed the basis of the Israeli armed forces.
“#33 by rahulmal on July 21, 2004 9:50pm PT
Jews lived in harmony with Arabs like Paki Hindus live in harmony with Muslims in today`s Pakistan...as if there are a plethora of options.”
As mentioned by taqat-e-parvaaz in post#35, many a times when Jews were persecuted in Europe, they found solace in Muslim countries. There was no large scale killing of Jews in Muslim lands as opposed to what happened in Europe. It’s only after the creation of Israel that things have come to this stage. “The Ottoman Empire, of which Palestine was a part at the time of Balfour Declaration, had, over the centuries, provided refuge for Jews fleeing from persecution, including the Sephardim who fled the reconquista and the inquisition in Spain in the fifteenth century.” (2)
“#33 by rahulmal on July 21, 2004 9:50pm PT
“I agree that coming of Ashkenazi Zionist Jews from Europe was bad, but not worse than coming of assortment of Turks, Persians and Arabs in India.”
There is, however, a vast difference between the scale of immigration represented by those seeking refuge from persecution, and the calculated usurpation and ethnic cleansing of an inhabited land…. A great deal of land was acquired by Jews by perfectly legitimate means, and this is not disputed, but the purchase of land in another country does not entitle one to establish one’s own state therein.(2)
(1) “The Palestine Triangle” by Nicholas Bethell
(2) ``The Palestine-Israeli Conflict`` by Dan Cohn-Sherbok & Dawoud El-Alami
#60 Posted by arjun_m on July 25, 2004 7:38:07 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#59 Posted by jang on July 24, 2004 5:02:19 pm
#57 by taqat-e-parvaaz
Lt Sharma being probed is indeed good. You guys also should probe and sack loser generals so that the army becomes more professional. Poor jap generals had to commit harakiris. But wait, you do make losers deal in Manure..i mean make them heads of Fauji Fertilizer Corp,right? Or for a more challengin position of Karachi Sewer Authority?
Lt Sharma being probed is indeed good. You guys also should probe and sack loser generals so that the army becomes more professional. Poor jap generals had to commit harakiris. But wait, you do make losers deal in Manure..i mean make them heads of Fauji Fertilizer Corp,right? Or for a more challengin position of Karachi Sewer Authority?
#58 Posted by arjun_m on July 24, 2004 3:51:58 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#57 Posted by taqat-e-parvaaz on July 24, 2004 1:25:56 pm
for your reading pleasure, arjun. hail to the brave indian army with the biggest cojones!!
India sacks Siachen commander
ISLAMABAD, June 21: Lt-Gen Arvind Sharma vacated the command of the Siachen Corps for Lt-Gen M.L. Naidu with immediate effect, even as the court of inquiry probing the fake kills cases in Siachen continued with its proceedings in Jodhpur.
Gen Sharma became the first casualty of a scandal that has exposed the culture of fake encounters by Indian Army in occupied Kashmir and Siachen. -APP
http://www.dawn.com/2004/06/22/top13.htm
India sacks Siachen commander
ISLAMABAD, June 21: Lt-Gen Arvind Sharma vacated the command of the Siachen Corps for Lt-Gen M.L. Naidu with immediate effect, even as the court of inquiry probing the fake kills cases in Siachen continued with its proceedings in Jodhpur.
Gen Sharma became the first casualty of a scandal that has exposed the culture of fake encounters by Indian Army in occupied Kashmir and Siachen. -APP
http://www.dawn.com/2004/06/22/top13.htm
#56 Posted by taqat-e-parvaaz on July 24, 2004 1:22:45 pm
`...forgot to take back.` What a convenient excuse for the miserable lack of bravery on the part of the Indian Army. Remember how mujahideen and SSG commandos stole your land from you and rained down heavy mortars and artillery on your heads for three months. HA! HA! Did your Army `forget` to fight then also? The BBC reported at one stage that so many dead Indian soldiers were coming back that there was not enough coffins to place them in. Cojones? Ha. You forget that Pakistans army is a fraction of the Indian army, yet dared to sneak into your territory and fight your soldiers. If India has `cojones` it would have fought Pakistan after the staged attack on the Parliament, where they found `terrorists` with Pakistani passports! hahahaa. You`re not fooling anyone `Arjun`.
#55 Posted by arjun_m on July 24, 2004 9:41:18 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#54 Posted by M.B.Z.Isphahani on July 24, 2004 8:39:38 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#53 Posted by jang on July 24, 2004 8:39:37 am
#52 by taqat-e-parvaaz
have you read a book by Bahl called Bunker #13? you will love it. it has (fictinalized) description of cordon-and-search operations by indian army dogs (quote from the book), mass rapes and other HR violations. its a must read for every indian and pakistani. unfortunately its a very poorly writtern book.
also, does one fight an awac vs awac? how so, pls explain (not you, someone else with more expertize hopefully).
have you read a book by Bahl called Bunker #13? you will love it. it has (fictinalized) description of cordon-and-search operations by indian army dogs (quote from the book), mass rapes and other HR violations. its a must read for every indian and pakistani. unfortunately its a very poorly writtern book.
also, does one fight an awac vs awac? how so, pls explain (not you, someone else with more expertize hopefully).
#52 Posted by taqat-e-parvaaz on July 23, 2004 9:44:44 pm
i was referring to the kargil ass kicking from a pakistani perspective my friend. i would rather drown than be an indian.
mr harish, if you are implying that pakistan has seen ethnic cleansing on the scale of gujrat and bombay than you`re severely deluded. i severely doubt that hindus in india are more unsafe than their muslim counterparts in india. pakistan will never see the rise of crazed fanatics like the RSS, the bajrang dal, and the shiv sena. sorry. never will hindus in pakistan be dragged out into the streets, beaten, and chopped into pieces. never in pakistan will hindu women be gang raped by muslim men and then stabbed repeatedly. never will pregnant women have their fetuses ripped out and killed violently. hurray for india`s secularism! these are all incidents that have occured in the past gujrat. arundhati roy herself has raised these in her last book. so dont compare the status of minorities in pakistan to the minorities in india. your so called secular society is secular only around the edges. the core of it is filled with hate and hindutva. the `saffronization` of india. i only pray that the narendra modi rots in the pits of hell for eternity or is shot dead by one of his own guards while defecating.
rahul, sorry to say this but pakistan has maintained a principled stand on kashmir. its a known fact that pakistan has a considerable advantage in this situation, but has foolishly not been able to leverage it properly. The great Eqbal Ahmed once wrote, ``Its (India) moral isolation on kashmir is nearly total, and unlikely to be overcome by military means or political manipulation. New Delhi commands not a shred of legitimacy among Kashmiri Muslims.`` Probably the result of drunken indian troops savaging entire villages of kashmiris and raping young kashmiri women. when the kashmiris fight back its insurgency. insurgency!! in their own country. ha! who the hell is india fooling?
mr harish, if you are implying that pakistan has seen ethnic cleansing on the scale of gujrat and bombay than you`re severely deluded. i severely doubt that hindus in india are more unsafe than their muslim counterparts in india. pakistan will never see the rise of crazed fanatics like the RSS, the bajrang dal, and the shiv sena. sorry. never will hindus in pakistan be dragged out into the streets, beaten, and chopped into pieces. never in pakistan will hindu women be gang raped by muslim men and then stabbed repeatedly. never will pregnant women have their fetuses ripped out and killed violently. hurray for india`s secularism! these are all incidents that have occured in the past gujrat. arundhati roy herself has raised these in her last book. so dont compare the status of minorities in pakistan to the minorities in india. your so called secular society is secular only around the edges. the core of it is filled with hate and hindutva. the `saffronization` of india. i only pray that the narendra modi rots in the pits of hell for eternity or is shot dead by one of his own guards while defecating.
rahul, sorry to say this but pakistan has maintained a principled stand on kashmir. its a known fact that pakistan has a considerable advantage in this situation, but has foolishly not been able to leverage it properly. The great Eqbal Ahmed once wrote, ``Its (India) moral isolation on kashmir is nearly total, and unlikely to be overcome by military means or political manipulation. New Delhi commands not a shred of legitimacy among Kashmiri Muslims.`` Probably the result of drunken indian troops savaging entire villages of kashmiris and raping young kashmiri women. when the kashmiris fight back its insurgency. insurgency!! in their own country. ha! who the hell is india fooling?
#51 Posted by taqat-e-parvaaz on July 23, 2004 9:44:44 pm
and yes, mrs. harish, the awacs that india bought were lousy. the only reason pakistan makes a fuss is in the hopes that the US panics and blocks the sale. and for your information, pakistan has just recently purchased a state of the art AWACS from Sweden. so stick that in your pipe and smoke it. and anyways, if india considers itself so technologically superior, it never forgets that any misadventure will result in a whole arsenal of Ghauris and Shaheens raining on the crowded and poverty stricken streets of calcutta and madras.
#50 Posted by taqat-e-parvaaz on July 23, 2004 9:44:44 pm
pakistan army got its ass kicked in kargil right? pakistani elite SSG commandos ran across the border covering their ass, right? eat this. never mess with the pakistan army.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll...show/724898.cms
`Key peak still in Pakistani occupation`
IANS[ MONDAY, JUNE 07, 2004 09:28:32 PM ]
CHANDIGARH : A former Indian Army officer has claimed a few strategic peaks in the Kargil sector of Jammu and Kashmir , including the crucial Point 5353, were still under occupation by Pakistani forces.
Brig. Surinder Singh, who was dismissed from service in June 2001, also claimed the Indian defence establishment had misled the country by claiming it had gained control on the peaks in Kargil, where India and Pakistan fought a brief border conflict in 1999.
Singh was sacked after being embroiled in a controversy with his superiors about alleged lapses and intelligence failures that led to Pakistan-backed intruders occupying strategic features along a 140-km stretch of the Line of Control.
He asserted he had proof that Point 5353, a hill in the Drass sector of north Kashmir , was still under Pakistani occupation.
``I have evidence of this claim including satellite images,`` he told reporters.
Singh said the alleged inaction of the defence and political leadership during the Kargil conflict was only the tip of the iceberg.
``The defence establishment had misled the nation about getting every intruder out of the Kargil sector. I can give proof of this to whatever committee the new government at the centre sets up,`` Singh said, noting he had written about the matter to Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee.
Singh said he had asked Mukherjee to order a thorough probe into the Kargil conflict and issues that were deliberately hidden by the previous coalition government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party.
#49 Posted by nb on July 23, 2004 7:19:02 am
there was a palestinian in my med school class.
i`m a bit shocked at this taqat, it`s very honest of him to admit his army got kicked in the bottom.
anyway, the israelis and palestinians are still going to be at it in 1000 years, bound to happen when each side thinks they are god`s special people and no hindu/buddhist types to give in for the sake of peace. what has happened to the palestinians is unfair but what happened to the jews for 2000 years was unfair too.
i`m a bit shocked at this taqat, it`s very honest of him to admit his army got kicked in the bottom.
anyway, the israelis and palestinians are still going to be at it in 1000 years, bound to happen when each side thinks they are god`s special people and no hindu/buddhist types to give in for the sake of peace. what has happened to the palestinians is unfair but what happened to the jews for 2000 years was unfair too.
#48 Posted by rahulmal on July 22, 2004 10:03:45 pm
wajahat,
Look man, I`m a pucca UP wallah. All the nasty words and phrases you use in Punjabi were loaned from our region, so don`t even bother testing me on that. I`m not here to mouth obscenties and bring my parents to shame. If I can`t stand a person, I quietly pull out from the debate.
BTW, Do unto others what you want them to do unto you. When you abuse Hindus, you not only abuse me but my parents, my forefathers, my nation, and ironically your forefathers (unless you are from some Arabian or Turkish tribe). Don`t expect others to be sober when you fail to moderate your own posts.
Look man, I`m a pucca UP wallah. All the nasty words and phrases you use in Punjabi were loaned from our region, so don`t even bother testing me on that. I`m not here to mouth obscenties and bring my parents to shame. If I can`t stand a person, I quietly pull out from the debate.
BTW, Do unto others what you want them to do unto you. When you abuse Hindus, you not only abuse me but my parents, my forefathers, my nation, and ironically your forefathers (unless you are from some Arabian or Turkish tribe). Don`t expect others to be sober when you fail to moderate your own posts.
#47 Posted by harish_hyd on July 22, 2004 9:44:03 pm
#42 by wajahat
[Atleast we in Pakistan have now learned to live with our Hindu Minority, I think U have a very very long way to go with the most recent Ethnic Cleansing in Gujarat.]
That must surely rate as the joke of the day. Hindus in Pakistan numbered almost 10-12% immediately after the partition. Now it is around 1-2%. What happened to the rest? Now don`t tell me they migrated to India or they converted to Islam out of love for the great religion.
#42 by wajahat
[I will also ask you to put aside your primal, instinctual hate for the Muslim and try and avoid the Harish hyd type typical hindu Inferiority when it comes to Indian History and Mughal rule.]
You seem to be confused. I never mentioned the Mughal rule in my post. And we know enough Muslims in India not to hate them. Can you say the same for Pakistanis? And when you talk of others` inferiority, it in fact betrays your own inferiority.
[Atleast we in Pakistan have now learned to live with our Hindu Minority, I think U have a very very long way to go with the most recent Ethnic Cleansing in Gujarat.]
That must surely rate as the joke of the day. Hindus in Pakistan numbered almost 10-12% immediately after the partition. Now it is around 1-2%. What happened to the rest? Now don`t tell me they migrated to India or they converted to Islam out of love for the great religion.
#42 by wajahat
[I will also ask you to put aside your primal, instinctual hate for the Muslim and try and avoid the Harish hyd type typical hindu Inferiority when it comes to Indian History and Mughal rule.]
You seem to be confused. I never mentioned the Mughal rule in my post. And we know enough Muslims in India not to hate them. Can you say the same for Pakistanis? And when you talk of others` inferiority, it in fact betrays your own inferiority.
#46 Posted by nikki7777 on July 22, 2004 4:57:30 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#45 Posted by jang on July 22, 2004 1:07:33 pm
its time to move on.
any struggle for nationalism needs to take into consideration good of its and other people. palestinians tried (kind of) with the help of a ragtag pan-arabist (read ummaites) to beat iserael in war but failed. their excuse: loook a superpower supported them. well, think vietnam, where the superpower put its own million men on the ground but got beat. fact is arab nationalism was just not strong enough to fight the determined jews. why was the arab nation not strong? due to 400 years of rotten Ottoman kaliphate rule ruined the previously smart arabs, but that is a different story altogether.
the point is, palestinians got a lot of support from india, tons of them got indian govt scholarships to study in its most elite schools where harimau got rejected due to this resrvation, and offcourse UN general assembly hullagoolla. compared to such quality support, kuwaities treat palis only slightly above pakis. but palis are not a strong eough nation. arabs have given up on them. they got their chance with support from everyone, but could not do it (ie throw jews into the sea) so its time to move on instead of getting all of us melee.
bottomline, if you think you can challenge the alpha male, do so, but later please respect the hierarchy for sake of rest of the human tribe, who has issues like foraging for its food and lice infestation to rake care of. raising rabble again and again is simply irresposible.
any struggle for nationalism needs to take into consideration good of its and other people. palestinians tried (kind of) with the help of a ragtag pan-arabist (read ummaites) to beat iserael in war but failed. their excuse: loook a superpower supported them. well, think vietnam, where the superpower put its own million men on the ground but got beat. fact is arab nationalism was just not strong enough to fight the determined jews. why was the arab nation not strong? due to 400 years of rotten Ottoman kaliphate rule ruined the previously smart arabs, but that is a different story altogether.
the point is, palestinians got a lot of support from india, tons of them got indian govt scholarships to study in its most elite schools where harimau got rejected due to this resrvation, and offcourse UN general assembly hullagoolla. compared to such quality support, kuwaities treat palis only slightly above pakis. but palis are not a strong eough nation. arabs have given up on them. they got their chance with support from everyone, but could not do it (ie throw jews into the sea) so its time to move on instead of getting all of us melee.
bottomline, if you think you can challenge the alpha male, do so, but later please respect the hierarchy for sake of rest of the human tribe, who has issues like foraging for its food and lice infestation to rake care of. raising rabble again and again is simply irresposible.
#44 Posted by bongdongs on July 22, 2004 1:07:33 pm
#42
OK, let me be the first to admit this (for all the others hiding in the shadows :-)) I tried reading ``Orientalism`` by Said and couldnt make out head from tail. Why the heck does he lapse into French for pages at lenght and emerge without so much as a translation?
(Almost as bad a Nirad-babu, every Sanskit sloka is translated but nary a translation for the French or Latin he lapses into)
Yeah, yeah I know the jokes just write themselves ... so go on ....
OK, let me be the first to admit this (for all the others hiding in the shadows :-)) I tried reading ``Orientalism`` by Said and couldnt make out head from tail. Why the heck does he lapse into French for pages at lenght and emerge without so much as a translation?
(Almost as bad a Nirad-babu, every Sanskit sloka is translated but nary a translation for the French or Latin he lapses into)
Yeah, yeah I know the jokes just write themselves ... so go on ....
#43 Posted by pmishra2 on July 22, 2004 1:07:32 pm
The great secular lover-of-human rights pakistani comments:
[wahajat]
Atleast we in Pakistan have now learned to live with our Hindu Minority
[end-wahajat]
Really? If so, where are they? Not long ago the NYTimes carried an article about how terrorized the hindu community was in pakistan. One hindu family had named their daughter Elizabeth so that they could at least pass for Christian.
Pakistan was 30% hindu and sikh before 1947; it is now under 3% hindu and sikh. In the enclosed table you will see the relative proportions of each community in India over time. From 9.84% muslim in 1961, India has gone to 11.67% muslim in 1991. I believe the current figures (from 2001 census) are around 12.1%.
And what do you learn from that, oh, great protector of minorities??? My guess is NOTHING.
http://hdrc.undp.org.in/resources/gnrl/ThmticResrce/PopnDmgphy/P_M_%20Kulkarni-2002.htm
Year/ Period
Religion All
Hindu
Muslim
Christian
Sikh
Buddhist
Jain
Population $ (in thousands)
1991
838,584
687,647
101,596
19,640
16,260
6,388
3,353
Percentage Share*
1991
100.00
82.41
11.67
2.32
1.99
0.77
0.41
1981
100.00
83.09
10.88
2.45
1.96
0.71
0.48
1971
100.00
83.51
10.37
2.56
1.94
0.70
0.49
1961
100.00
84.27
9.84
2.41
1.83
0.73
0.47
[wahajat]
Atleast we in Pakistan have now learned to live with our Hindu Minority
[end-wahajat]
Really? If so, where are they? Not long ago the NYTimes carried an article about how terrorized the hindu community was in pakistan. One hindu family had named their daughter Elizabeth so that they could at least pass for Christian.
Pakistan was 30% hindu and sikh before 1947; it is now under 3% hindu and sikh. In the enclosed table you will see the relative proportions of each community in India over time. From 9.84% muslim in 1961, India has gone to 11.67% muslim in 1991. I believe the current figures (from 2001 census) are around 12.1%.
And what do you learn from that, oh, great protector of minorities??? My guess is NOTHING.
http://hdrc.undp.org.in/resources/gnrl/ThmticResrce/PopnDmgphy/P_M_%20Kulkarni-2002.htm
Year/ Period
Religion All
Hindu
Muslim
Christian
Sikh
Buddhist
Jain
Population $ (in thousands)
1991
838,584
687,647
101,596
19,640
16,260
6,388
3,353
Percentage Share*
1991
100.00
82.41
11.67
2.32
1.99
0.77
0.41
1981
100.00
83.09
10.88
2.45
1.96
0.71
0.48
1971
100.00
83.51
10.37
2.56
1.94
0.70
0.49
1961
100.00
84.27
9.84
2.41
1.83
0.73
0.47
#42 Posted by wajahat on July 22, 2004 9:51:37 am
Harish Hyd
``We all remember what happened to the Hindus in Pakistan post-1947, and what is still happening to them in Bangladesh. And if you still have the gall to say this, you are either not from this planet or an outright liar.``
Listen pal, Enough of the serial crying card, Partition was a mutual pandaemonium, with terrible and unforgivable inhumanity from both sides of the divide. Atleast we in Pakistan have now learned to live with our Hindu Minority, I think U have a very very long way to go with the most recent Ethnic Cleansing in Gujarat. So please save your breath and stop playing this outdated partition card.
#41 Posted by wajahat on July 22, 2004 9:51:37 am
Rahulmal
``I`ve not read Edward Said, but I know he was a liberal (euphemism for leftist). These people are adept at spreading canards, but I`d like to read `Orientalism` whenever I can get my hands on it.``
I am going to try and ignore your ignorance and blatant labelling without prior knowledge of a Edward Said, as amateur laptop warriors like yourselves have a natural tendancy to that. But I would recommend that you read Orientalism, and really get a sense of the Non-political academic nature of that great literary work. I will also ask you to put aside your primal, instinctual hate for the Muslim and try and avoid the Harish hyd type typical hindu Inferiority when it comes to Indian History and Mughal rule. Edward Said was a phenomenal man, and one of the true Benchmarks of Arab Literary genius after Khalil Gibran in the last century.
In response to this, if you do decide to act like the average Indian contributor to this site and come out with the atypical swearing, keep it directed at me and not Edward Said, would that be too much to expect off you?
``I`ve not read Edward Said, but I know he was a liberal (euphemism for leftist). These people are adept at spreading canards, but I`d like to read `Orientalism` whenever I can get my hands on it.``
I am going to try and ignore your ignorance and blatant labelling without prior knowledge of a Edward Said, as amateur laptop warriors like yourselves have a natural tendancy to that. But I would recommend that you read Orientalism, and really get a sense of the Non-political academic nature of that great literary work. I will also ask you to put aside your primal, instinctual hate for the Muslim and try and avoid the Harish hyd type typical hindu Inferiority when it comes to Indian History and Mughal rule. Edward Said was a phenomenal man, and one of the true Benchmarks of Arab Literary genius after Khalil Gibran in the last century.
In response to this, if you do decide to act like the average Indian contributor to this site and come out with the atypical swearing, keep it directed at me and not Edward Said, would that be too much to expect off you?
#40 Posted by rahulmal on July 22, 2004 7:34:30 am
taqat,
It would be naive on my part not to accept that there was a pro-Israeli tilt in India`s foreign policy during BJP regime (NDA, if you will). Part of the problem stems from the jaundiced view of Islam vs rest that some Sanghis share with Likudians. Even during illegitimate invasion of Iraq, there were voices that supported Indians troops going to Iraq and doing the American dirty work on our erstwhile ally Saddam. Thank God, they voice were drowned. I don`t think Congress would have entertained Sharon in India.
Having said that, there are other Indians who don`t share fanatical world-view of SOME Sanghis (some in CAPS to bring out the fact that not all Sanghis think alike), yet want India to align more closely with Israel rather then Palestinians. Reasons are more related to getting of the moral high horse and introducing more pragmatism in foreign policy, the same pragmatism that makes India get cosy with US.
Trust me pal, we don`t need to learn tackling of terrorism from Israelis. Despite their overwhelimg superiority, they have not had a good record. As for AWACS, I don`t think that can change India`s foreign policy. We are getting the weapons, they are getting the money. Since we`ve guaranteed that we`ll not share the technology with Iranians or Chinese, US and Israel are OK with the deal.
I`ve not read Edward Said, but I know he was a liberal (euphemism for leftist). These people are adept at spreading canards, but I`d like to read `Orientalism` whenever I can get my hands on it. Never heard of Massad...another Christian Arab??
`` i cannot recall incidents of hindus under muslim rule being treated as third rate citizens`` Buddy, you are right!! We were just treated as second-rate citizens not thrid-rate. Jizyah was imposed, temples were razed to the ground, women were raped, men beheaded and you know all the other things I`ll add, so I`ll not bother.
I read a funny comment on The Friday Times by Fatima Raja
``There is Babur...his memoirs reveal a genuinely nice person...and his attitude towards the idols of India to which he objected not on religious but on aesthetic grounds. `` Give me a break!! If I write history of Mody saying that he removed lousy looking Muslims in beards on aesthetic grounds, would you chew on that?
After reading this, tell me why I shouldn`t support Sharon`s boys who remove stinking homes of Pales on aesthetic grounds :-)
I know fools when I spot them, these Israeli blokes are no better than their enemies across the separation fence. Whenever someone says they`ve God`s original software, I know he is spamming.
It would be naive on my part not to accept that there was a pro-Israeli tilt in India`s foreign policy during BJP regime (NDA, if you will). Part of the problem stems from the jaundiced view of Islam vs rest that some Sanghis share with Likudians. Even during illegitimate invasion of Iraq, there were voices that supported Indians troops going to Iraq and doing the American dirty work on our erstwhile ally Saddam. Thank God, they voice were drowned. I don`t think Congress would have entertained Sharon in India.
Having said that, there are other Indians who don`t share fanatical world-view of SOME Sanghis (some in CAPS to bring out the fact that not all Sanghis think alike), yet want India to align more closely with Israel rather then Palestinians. Reasons are more related to getting of the moral high horse and introducing more pragmatism in foreign policy, the same pragmatism that makes India get cosy with US.
Trust me pal, we don`t need to learn tackling of terrorism from Israelis. Despite their overwhelimg superiority, they have not had a good record. As for AWACS, I don`t think that can change India`s foreign policy. We are getting the weapons, they are getting the money. Since we`ve guaranteed that we`ll not share the technology with Iranians or Chinese, US and Israel are OK with the deal.
I`ve not read Edward Said, but I know he was a liberal (euphemism for leftist). These people are adept at spreading canards, but I`d like to read `Orientalism` whenever I can get my hands on it. Never heard of Massad...another Christian Arab??
`` i cannot recall incidents of hindus under muslim rule being treated as third rate citizens`` Buddy, you are right!! We were just treated as second-rate citizens not thrid-rate. Jizyah was imposed, temples were razed to the ground, women were raped, men beheaded and you know all the other things I`ll add, so I`ll not bother.
I read a funny comment on The Friday Times by Fatima Raja
``There is Babur...his memoirs reveal a genuinely nice person...and his attitude towards the idols of India to which he objected not on religious but on aesthetic grounds. `` Give me a break!! If I write history of Mody saying that he removed lousy looking Muslims in beards on aesthetic grounds, would you chew on that?
After reading this, tell me why I shouldn`t support Sharon`s boys who remove stinking homes of Pales on aesthetic grounds :-)
I know fools when I spot them, these Israeli blokes are no better than their enemies across the separation fence. Whenever someone says they`ve God`s original software, I know he is spamming.
#39 Posted by harish_hyd on July 22, 2004 7:34:30 am
#35 by taqat-e-parvaaz
[but that doesnt change the fact that under the BJP india`s foreign policy toward the israeli-palestinian conflict saw a complete reversal.]
Just why should India be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause? And what difference can India`s support make? When Israel routinely defies the world`s lone superpower and its biggest supporter, what chance does India stand? India, under the BJP took a most pragmatic decision to engage Israel and reap the benefits of some of the technological advances that country had made. India owes it more to its own people than to the Palestinians. Pakistan maybe wedded to the cause of `oppressed` Muslim peoples everywhere (Palestinians, Chechens, Kashmiris, etc.), but just why should India do the same?
And in case you don`t know, just the other day India voted against Israel at the UN.
[india completely sold out in exchange for a lousy AWACS system based on 1980`s technology and limited help during the kargil ass-kicking.]
If the AWACS were as lousy as you say they are, why did Pakistan make such a huge fuss when India announced its decision to purchase the system? I`ll let you in on a secret. It maybe lousy, but it is better than anything Pakistan has or will have in the near future. And that is what matters. It has also gained tremendously from Israel`s anti-terrorism capabilities. Also, the hand-held thermal imager that India procured helped it drastically cut down casualties among the security forces and brought the terrorists to their knees. And these are only a few examples of how India has benefited.
[i cannot recall incidents of hindus under muslim rule being treated as third rate citizens, as having their homes demolished because muslims believe that the land was given to them by God....]
We all remember what happened to the Hindus in Pakistan post-1947, and what is still happening to them in Bangladesh. And if you still have the gall to say this, you are either not from this planet or an outright liar.
[but that doesnt change the fact that under the BJP india`s foreign policy toward the israeli-palestinian conflict saw a complete reversal.]
Just why should India be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause? And what difference can India`s support make? When Israel routinely defies the world`s lone superpower and its biggest supporter, what chance does India stand? India, under the BJP took a most pragmatic decision to engage Israel and reap the benefits of some of the technological advances that country had made. India owes it more to its own people than to the Palestinians. Pakistan maybe wedded to the cause of `oppressed` Muslim peoples everywhere (Palestinians, Chechens, Kashmiris, etc.), but just why should India do the same?
And in case you don`t know, just the other day India voted against Israel at the UN.
[india completely sold out in exchange for a lousy AWACS system based on 1980`s technology and limited help during the kargil ass-kicking.]
If the AWACS were as lousy as you say they are, why did Pakistan make such a huge fuss when India announced its decision to purchase the system? I`ll let you in on a secret. It maybe lousy, but it is better than anything Pakistan has or will have in the near future. And that is what matters. It has also gained tremendously from Israel`s anti-terrorism capabilities. Also, the hand-held thermal imager that India procured helped it drastically cut down casualties among the security forces and brought the terrorists to their knees. And these are only a few examples of how India has benefited.
[i cannot recall incidents of hindus under muslim rule being treated as third rate citizens, as having their homes demolished because muslims believe that the land was given to them by God....]
We all remember what happened to the Hindus in Pakistan post-1947, and what is still happening to them in Bangladesh. And if you still have the gall to say this, you are either not from this planet or an outright liar.
#38 Posted by rahulmal on July 22, 2004 7:34:30 am
taqat,
The last post was getting too big...here is the remainder
``Crusades were wars thrust upon the muslims`` I never said Muslims invited Franks, ``chal do-do haath ho jaaye``. This was in response to Wajahat`s claim that Jerusalem was peaceful before European Jews came there.
``musharraf has repeated that he will not negotiate with israel until it finds a just solution, one based on 242 and 338 no doubt`` Brother, this one is straight from Paki book of diplomatic conduct. First, you decide as to what is a just and peaceful solution, and then thrust the responsibility of achieving this on the other party. Isn`t that what your general says, ``peace blah blah as per the wishes of Kasmiri people..blah blah..LoC not acceptable``. This is called negotiating with closed minds.
``i would recommend you separate fact from fiction before you decide to post`` if you could separate facts and fiction in my earlier posts on this board, I`ll happily eat crow. I respect people with better knowledge even if they are my worst enemies. My knowledge of religion is based on Ramayana, where Ram asks Laxman to get knowledge from Ravana, if you know what I mean.
``your detachment from historical truths shows your knowledge to be that of a high schooler`` I don`t like to get personal when discussion is serious. But yes, you got the high-school part right :-) I didn`t study History as part of curriculum after X, but I read a lot. As I said earlier, point me to mistakes and I`ll apologize, indulge in rhetoric, I`ll post a rebuttal.
The last post was getting too big...here is the remainder
``Crusades were wars thrust upon the muslims`` I never said Muslims invited Franks, ``chal do-do haath ho jaaye``. This was in response to Wajahat`s claim that Jerusalem was peaceful before European Jews came there.
``musharraf has repeated that he will not negotiate with israel until it finds a just solution, one based on 242 and 338 no doubt`` Brother, this one is straight from Paki book of diplomatic conduct. First, you decide as to what is a just and peaceful solution, and then thrust the responsibility of achieving this on the other party. Isn`t that what your general says, ``peace blah blah as per the wishes of Kasmiri people..blah blah..LoC not acceptable``. This is called negotiating with closed minds.
``i would recommend you separate fact from fiction before you decide to post`` if you could separate facts and fiction in my earlier posts on this board, I`ll happily eat crow. I respect people with better knowledge even if they are my worst enemies. My knowledge of religion is based on Ramayana, where Ram asks Laxman to get knowledge from Ravana, if you know what I mean.
``your detachment from historical truths shows your knowledge to be that of a high schooler`` I don`t like to get personal when discussion is serious. But yes, you got the high-school part right :-) I didn`t study History as part of curriculum after X, but I read a lot. As I said earlier, point me to mistakes and I`ll apologize, indulge in rhetoric, I`ll post a rebuttal.
#37 Posted by arjun_m on July 22, 2004 7:34:29 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#36 Posted by stuka on July 22, 2004 6:52:05 am
Taqat e Parvez:
``i cannot recall incidents of hindus under muslim rule being treated as third rate citizens``
Maybe you need to read about Aurangzeb. Maybe you need to read about the Governer of Sirhind who had the 6 and 9 year old sons of Guru Gobind Singh walled alive because they would not accept Iislam. I could go on and on but that is not the point.
``i cannot recall incidents of hindus under muslim rule being treated as third rate citizens``
Maybe you need to read about Aurangzeb. Maybe you need to read about the Governer of Sirhind who had the 6 and 9 year old sons of Guru Gobind Singh walled alive because they would not accept Iislam. I could go on and on but that is not the point.
#35 Posted by taqat-e-parvaaz on July 22, 2004 1:27:50 am
very well, rahul. but that doesnt change the fact that under the BJP india`s foreign policy toward the israeli-palestinian conflict saw a complete reversal. india completely sold out in exchange for a lousy AWACS system based on 1980`s technology and limited help during the kargil ass-kicking. pakistan has maintained that it is willing to consider a change in ties. musharraf has repeated that he will not negotiate with israel until it finds a just solution, one based on 242 and 338 no doubt. and yes, the only time that jews lived peacefully alongside muslims was under muslim rule, as in the case of islamic spain and later the ottoman turks. we all see now what happens when those roles are reversed.
moreover, your comparison of muslim rule in south asia and israeli occupation of palestine is disturbing. perhaps you should read more edward said and joseph massad. i cannot recall incidents of hindus under muslim rule being treated as third rate citizens, as having their homes demolished because muslims believe that the land was given to them by God, or being caged into their villages at night (yes, a palestinian town, is actually locked from the outside by israeli defence forces at night). and please dont forget that the Crusades were wars thrust upon the muslims, not wars of aggression. your detachment from historical truths shows your knowledge to be that of a high schooler, at best. i would recommend you separate fact from fiction before you decide to post.
moreover, your comparison of muslim rule in south asia and israeli occupation of palestine is disturbing. perhaps you should read more edward said and joseph massad. i cannot recall incidents of hindus under muslim rule being treated as third rate citizens, as having their homes demolished because muslims believe that the land was given to them by God, or being caged into their villages at night (yes, a palestinian town, is actually locked from the outside by israeli defence forces at night). and please dont forget that the Crusades were wars thrust upon the muslims, not wars of aggression. your detachment from historical truths shows your knowledge to be that of a high schooler, at best. i would recommend you separate fact from fiction before you decide to post.
#34 Posted by harish_hyd on July 22, 2004 1:27:49 am
#32 by echoboom
Man, are you Afghan or is that the notorious pan-Islamic/Ummah thingy? Jeez....just when will the Pakis wake up?
Man, are you Afghan or is that the notorious pan-Islamic/Ummah thingy? Jeez....just when will the Pakis wake up?
#33 Posted by rahulmal on July 21, 2004 9:50:08 pm
wajahat,
Palestine being a peaceful land before 20th century is another of those myths, blatant lies that are as divorced from reality as lies can be. How about Crusades, how about Saladin? Were these wars fought in South-Asia?
Jews lived in harmony with Arabs like Paki Hindus live in harmony with Muslims in today`s Pakistan...as if there are a plethora of options.
I agree that coming of Ashkenazi Zionist Jews from Europe was bad, but not worse than coming of assortment of Turks, Persians and Arabs in India. Their progeny divided the nation, took their pound of flesh and now preach against dividing nations on the basis of religion. If clock shouldn`t be turned back by 2 millennia, what makes you think it can be turned back by 5 decades? The Hindus swallowed the bitter pill of Islamic exclusivism. That you choose not to recognize Israel founded on the same notion of exclusive right to land of a religious community reeks of double standards.
``The displacement of Millions of Muslims was a ethnic cleanising excercise``, just replace Muslims with Hindus and change the area from middle-east to Pakistan...I bet you won’t like the sentence unless you want to say that ethnic cleansing is a bad thing only when it happens to Muslims.
The demographic reality is a joke, a reminder of the mob mentality that appears a panacea to all problems until you are on the wrong side of the mob.
Mukhlis has posted some figures about Israeli army/militia in `48. So, 600,000 settlers were able to field an army twice the size of armies of 60 million Arabs...doesn`t show the Arabs in a very good light.
``But I am somehow always surprised by the Inhumanity of our Indian Neighbours on the Paletine issue`` This is a huge insinuation. What makes you think we are insensitive...who gave Arafat our highest civilian award...who admits Palestinian students in our universities, professional institutes and colleges...who votes in favour of all resolutions against Israel? As for diplomatic relations, Jordan ruled by Hashemites who claim descent from your Prophet Mohammed has full relations with Israel, same with Egypt and Morocco. Even your dear General salivates at the prospect of friendly ties with Israel.
Palestine being a peaceful land before 20th century is another of those myths, blatant lies that are as divorced from reality as lies can be. How about Crusades, how about Saladin? Were these wars fought in South-Asia?
Jews lived in harmony with Arabs like Paki Hindus live in harmony with Muslims in today`s Pakistan...as if there are a plethora of options.
I agree that coming of Ashkenazi Zionist Jews from Europe was bad, but not worse than coming of assortment of Turks, Persians and Arabs in India. Their progeny divided the nation, took their pound of flesh and now preach against dividing nations on the basis of religion. If clock shouldn`t be turned back by 2 millennia, what makes you think it can be turned back by 5 decades? The Hindus swallowed the bitter pill of Islamic exclusivism. That you choose not to recognize Israel founded on the same notion of exclusive right to land of a religious community reeks of double standards.
``The displacement of Millions of Muslims was a ethnic cleanising excercise``, just replace Muslims with Hindus and change the area from middle-east to Pakistan...I bet you won’t like the sentence unless you want to say that ethnic cleansing is a bad thing only when it happens to Muslims.
The demographic reality is a joke, a reminder of the mob mentality that appears a panacea to all problems until you are on the wrong side of the mob.
Mukhlis has posted some figures about Israeli army/militia in `48. So, 600,000 settlers were able to field an army twice the size of armies of 60 million Arabs...doesn`t show the Arabs in a very good light.
``But I am somehow always surprised by the Inhumanity of our Indian Neighbours on the Paletine issue`` This is a huge insinuation. What makes you think we are insensitive...who gave Arafat our highest civilian award...who admits Palestinian students in our universities, professional institutes and colleges...who votes in favour of all resolutions against Israel? As for diplomatic relations, Jordan ruled by Hashemites who claim descent from your Prophet Mohammed has full relations with Israel, same with Egypt and Morocco. Even your dear General salivates at the prospect of friendly ties with Israel.
#32 Posted by echoboom on July 21, 2004 8:54:09 pm
That was 1841, This is 2004
Excerpts:
From a sensational report by Mohan-Laal about Kabul circa 1841 , then from a report by Christina Lamb, Of the Globe & Mail..july, 2004.
The difference: In 1841 it was the British Baboons, in 2004 it is the U.S Pachyderm-asses.
British were crushed, destroyed and humiliated like no other nation in human history,
and Christina Lamb observes that US might meet meet the same fate.
The U.S has no clue with which nation it has taken Pungaa.
Excerpts:
From a sensational report by Mohan-Laal about Kabul circa 1841 , then from a report by Christina Lamb, Of the Globe & Mail..july, 2004.
The difference: In 1841 it was the British Baboons, in 2004 it is the U.S Pachyderm-asses.
British were crushed, destroyed and humiliated like no other nation in human history,
and Christina Lamb observes that US might meet meet the same fate.
The U.S has no clue with which nation it has taken Pungaa.
#31 Posted by nikki7777 on July 21, 2004 6:12:05 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#30 Posted by nikki7777 on July 21, 2004 6:12:05 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#29 Posted by Mukhlis on July 21, 2004 6:12:05 pm
A correction in my Post # 27.
The sentence:
Palestinians –both Muslims & Jews- have been fighting for their right to live on the land which has been theirs for thousands of years.
should read:
Arabs –both Muslims & Christians- have been fighting for their right to live on the land which has been theirs for thousands of years.
The sentence:
Palestinians –both Muslims & Jews- have been fighting for their right to live on the land which has been theirs for thousands of years.
should read:
Arabs –both Muslims & Christians- have been fighting for their right to live on the land which has been theirs for thousands of years.
#28 Posted by arjun_m on July 21, 2004 3:38:40 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#27 Posted by Mukhlis on July 21, 2004 11:04:32 am
#2 by solitude
“This is an Islamic Militant struggle to kill jews and take over Jerusalem for Islam. To pretend that this is some struggle of ``Palestenians`` is an insult to intelligence. It might work with the gullible westerners but don`t insult us Muslims with this drivel!”
Well, there are some Islamic extremist elements now within the Palestinians like Hizbollah & Hamas, but by & large the Palestinian struggle has been secular. Palestinians –both Muslims & Jews- have been fighting for their right to live on the land which has been theirs for thousands of years.
#10 by kaurasach on July 20, 2004 8:07am PT
``In history people get displaced all the time. Jews had to migrate and slave under foreigners. If they want to use history as the source of validation, Jews inhabited the land 2000 years before muslims.``
#17 by nikki7777 on July 20, 2004 4:38pm PT
``#8......wajahat......The jews have been there as long as the palestinians have and all`s fair in love and war, just like the palestinians won it a while ago and threw all the jews out resulting in the proliferation of jews in europe and other lands.``
..the history of the Jewish Palestine ended effectively in 137 CE. Until the middle of the twentieth century, there had not been a Jewish majority in Palestine since that time over 1800 years ago. In a kind of international aberration one of the most significant events of the twentieth century, involving the destruction & dispersal of a settled, indigenous population, has been based on a folk memory that, however vital to the cultural identity of the Jewish people, cannot possibly have entitled them to colonize an inhabited land at the very time when the rest of the world was turning against colonialism. Traditions & beliefs may have lingered on, the yearning to ‘return’ to a spiritual homeland may have remained through the centuries, but the hard reality of more than 1800 years remains. It is inconceivable that in any other sphere of human existence an attempt might be made to turn back the clock almost two millennia. (1)
#10 by kaurasach on July 20, 2004 8:07am PT
``One thing one must concede is the will power and bravery of Israel. A rag tag army of refugees and persecuted has bloomed into an ideal and exemplary state in middle of hostile land and neighbors. Bravo!``
Yes, Israel is a perfect example of a very determined group of people having survived, while surrounded by a hostile (or shall I see erstwhile hostile, as most of its major Arab neighbors have been living in peace with Israel for quite some time now) populace. But just because the Arab countries that invaded Israel in 1948 were more in numbers (and I mean the countries being more in numbers, not the number of soldiers), the Israeli Army even at that time was not a rag tag entity.
“The Arab forces that entered Palestine at this point (i.e 15 May, 1948), comprised 6000 Jordanians, 9000 Iraqis, 5000 Egyptians, 1000 Syrians, 3000 Saudis, & some 3000 volunteers from other Arab countries. On the borders were a further 4000 Jordanians, 1000 Iraqis, 8000 Egyptians, 1500 Syrians, 1800 Lebanese & 3500 volunteers from other Arab countries. The Arab armed forces amounted to some 46000 in total.
The Israeli forces in Palestine comprised 17000 mobile attack troops, 1800 semi-mobile attack troops, 50000 regular defence troops, 12000 members of the Irgun & somewhere between 400 & 1800 members of the Stern Gang, constituting a total Israeli fighting force of some 97,800.” (1)
(1) Taken from the book ``The Palestine-Israeli Conflict`` by Dan Cohn-Sherbok & Dawoud El-Alami
“This is an Islamic Militant struggle to kill jews and take over Jerusalem for Islam. To pretend that this is some struggle of ``Palestenians`` is an insult to intelligence. It might work with the gullible westerners but don`t insult us Muslims with this drivel!”
Well, there are some Islamic extremist elements now within the Palestinians like Hizbollah & Hamas, but by & large the Palestinian struggle has been secular. Palestinians –both Muslims & Jews- have been fighting for their right to live on the land which has been theirs for thousands of years.
#10 by kaurasach on July 20, 2004 8:07am PT
``In history people get displaced all the time. Jews had to migrate and slave under foreigners. If they want to use history as the source of validation, Jews inhabited the land 2000 years before muslims.``
#17 by nikki7777 on July 20, 2004 4:38pm PT
``#8......wajahat......The jews have been there as long as the palestinians have and all`s fair in love and war, just like the palestinians won it a while ago and threw all the jews out resulting in the proliferation of jews in europe and other lands.``
..the history of the Jewish Palestine ended effectively in 137 CE. Until the middle of the twentieth century, there had not been a Jewish majority in Palestine since that time over 1800 years ago. In a kind of international aberration one of the most significant events of the twentieth century, involving the destruction & dispersal of a settled, indigenous population, has been based on a folk memory that, however vital to the cultural identity of the Jewish people, cannot possibly have entitled them to colonize an inhabited land at the very time when the rest of the world was turning against colonialism. Traditions & beliefs may have lingered on, the yearning to ‘return’ to a spiritual homeland may have remained through the centuries, but the hard reality of more than 1800 years remains. It is inconceivable that in any other sphere of human existence an attempt might be made to turn back the clock almost two millennia. (1)
#10 by kaurasach on July 20, 2004 8:07am PT
``One thing one must concede is the will power and bravery of Israel. A rag tag army of refugees and persecuted has bloomed into an ideal and exemplary state in middle of hostile land and neighbors. Bravo!``
Yes, Israel is a perfect example of a very determined group of people having survived, while surrounded by a hostile (or shall I see erstwhile hostile, as most of its major Arab neighbors have been living in peace with Israel for quite some time now) populace. But just because the Arab countries that invaded Israel in 1948 were more in numbers (and I mean the countries being more in numbers, not the number of soldiers), the Israeli Army even at that time was not a rag tag entity.
“The Arab forces that entered Palestine at this point (i.e 15 May, 1948), comprised 6000 Jordanians, 9000 Iraqis, 5000 Egyptians, 1000 Syrians, 3000 Saudis, & some 3000 volunteers from other Arab countries. On the borders were a further 4000 Jordanians, 1000 Iraqis, 8000 Egyptians, 1500 Syrians, 1800 Lebanese & 3500 volunteers from other Arab countries. The Arab armed forces amounted to some 46000 in total.
The Israeli forces in Palestine comprised 17000 mobile attack troops, 1800 semi-mobile attack troops, 50000 regular defence troops, 12000 members of the Irgun & somewhere between 400 & 1800 members of the Stern Gang, constituting a total Israeli fighting force of some 97,800.” (1)
(1) Taken from the book ``The Palestine-Israeli Conflict`` by Dan Cohn-Sherbok & Dawoud El-Alami
#25 Posted by arjun_m on July 21, 2004 7:53:41 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#24 Posted by stuka on July 21, 2004 7:45:10 am
Wajahat:
We did the same ethnic cleansing. Big deal. Hindus are settled in India and Muslims are settled in Pakistan.
Why Pakistanis do not support Israel when the creation of the two entities is so similar is beyond me.
Also, there was ethnic cleansing of Jews from Egypt and other Arab nations.
We did the same ethnic cleansing. Big deal. Hindus are settled in India and Muslims are settled in Pakistan.
Why Pakistanis do not support Israel when the creation of the two entities is so similar is beyond me.
Also, there was ethnic cleansing of Jews from Egypt and other Arab nations.
#23 Posted by wajahat on July 21, 2004 7:38:22 am
Rahulmal
Before the Violent arrival of the Zionist Jew from Europe, Palestine was a peaceful land, inhabited by Christian, Jews & Muslims who lived together in relative harmony. The first Suicide Bombing was carried out by the Zionist militias against the British in 40s. The displacement of Millions of Muslims was a ethnic cleanising excercise, which was almost alike the mongolian invasions several centuries ago. The arab-israeli war was a terrible defeat and the occupation of the post 1967 land was a dark time for the Palestinians.
Today Israel is Superpower, backed by the US, immuned by any sanction by the UN, Cutting up land and creating fences which is causing exodus of millions of palestinians. The palestinian leaders are corrupt and have mismanaged their resources badly, offcourse Israel and its system invasions into gaza and occupied territories and destruction of all cvilised insitutions on a regular basis is ignored by the Intellectuals of the world.
From what i saw in your post, it is not that the South Asians have buried their heads, it is that we are isolated groups, who are one either side of the fence. What you feel is an Israeli Reality, I call the Palestinian Problem. Israel is already trying its best to dispose all Arabs who will in 30 years or so become a demographic majority in the area. This is continued ethnic Cleansing and just like the South African Bantistans, these walls are creating small enclosures to keep the animals, as the Zionist call the Palestinians. In this world today, such racism goes without any check, I respect the europeons who can still see this an unjust and unfair human issue, rather than a political situation. But I am somehow always surprised by the Inhumanity of our Indian Neighbours on the Paletine issue, knowing full well the great Gandhi himself was an active pro palestinian leader who called Israel`s Actions Barbarous anda shame on humanity.
Islamic Fundamentalist have still found no grounds in Palestine, the battle there is still about the survival of a very brave group of people who even after 55 years of persecution, ethnic cleansing are still fighting back for their land. The Palestinians are the bravest people on earth.
Before the Violent arrival of the Zionist Jew from Europe, Palestine was a peaceful land, inhabited by Christian, Jews & Muslims who lived together in relative harmony. The first Suicide Bombing was carried out by the Zionist militias against the British in 40s. The displacement of Millions of Muslims was a ethnic cleanising excercise, which was almost alike the mongolian invasions several centuries ago. The arab-israeli war was a terrible defeat and the occupation of the post 1967 land was a dark time for the Palestinians.
Today Israel is Superpower, backed by the US, immuned by any sanction by the UN, Cutting up land and creating fences which is causing exodus of millions of palestinians. The palestinian leaders are corrupt and have mismanaged their resources badly, offcourse Israel and its system invasions into gaza and occupied territories and destruction of all cvilised insitutions on a regular basis is ignored by the Intellectuals of the world.
From what i saw in your post, it is not that the South Asians have buried their heads, it is that we are isolated groups, who are one either side of the fence. What you feel is an Israeli Reality, I call the Palestinian Problem. Israel is already trying its best to dispose all Arabs who will in 30 years or so become a demographic majority in the area. This is continued ethnic Cleansing and just like the South African Bantistans, these walls are creating small enclosures to keep the animals, as the Zionist call the Palestinians. In this world today, such racism goes without any check, I respect the europeons who can still see this an unjust and unfair human issue, rather than a political situation. But I am somehow always surprised by the Inhumanity of our Indian Neighbours on the Paletine issue, knowing full well the great Gandhi himself was an active pro palestinian leader who called Israel`s Actions Barbarous anda shame on humanity.
Islamic Fundamentalist have still found no grounds in Palestine, the battle there is still about the survival of a very brave group of people who even after 55 years of persecution, ethnic cleansing are still fighting back for their land. The Palestinians are the bravest people on earth.
#22 Posted by stuka on July 21, 2004 7:36:37 am
#20
Its not ancient History as much as the creation of Pakistan that is used by the Hindutva types. They believe in the Two Nation Theory same as the majority of Muslims in Northern India did, till ofcourse it was time to pack up and leave. At that point there was a spurt in the belief of India`s secularism.
Its not ancient History as much as the creation of Pakistan that is used by the Hindutva types. They believe in the Two Nation Theory same as the majority of Muslims in Northern India did, till ofcourse it was time to pack up and leave. At that point there was a spurt in the belief of India`s secularism.
#21 Posted by vertex on July 20, 2004 10:00:11 pm
nikki,
``...law abiding indians, muslims too...``
A fig leaf? How unlike you...
``...law abiding indians, muslims too...``
A fig leaf? How unlike you...
#20 Posted by vertex on July 20, 2004 10:00:11 pm
pmishra2,
Yes, let`s hope these ``no good arabs`` do not behave like the ``no good hindus`` who use the excuse of foriegn rule and historical occupation to excuse or at the very least rationalize the Hindutva types...
Yes, let`s hope these ``no good arabs`` do not behave like the ``no good hindus`` who use the excuse of foriegn rule and historical occupation to excuse or at the very least rationalize the Hindutva types...
#19 Posted by rahulmal on July 20, 2004 10:00:11 pm
wajahat,
I think it is the oriental mentality that stops us from recognizing the truth even when it stares us in the face. The Chinese, Japs and other Eastern people have come out of this strange inclination to obfuscate and bury their heads in the sand, the middle-easterners and South-Asians are yet to do that. Probably, that explains the difference in their and our development indices.
There are many myths propagated by vested interests regarding Arab-Israeli dispute:
1) Palestinians are a distinct ethnic group and there was a Palestinian state during some epoch in History.
There is no difference between Jordanian Arabs and Palestinian Arabs. The term Palestinian itself was coined in 20th century to give an identity to people west of Jordan River. There has never been a monarchy or republic called Palestine/any other name that ruled exclusively the areas west of Jordan river.
2) Israel was supported by US/UK in the `48 war.
In fact, Great Britain had imposed an arms embargo in middle-east to stop the new nation from getting their weapons. Britain had a pro-Arab tilt till. They thought that a Jewish nation in middle-east was not viable and put their bets on oil-rich Arab nations.
3) PLO/Fatah is a nationalist organization with the sole aim of liberating West bank and Gaza.
PLO was founded in 1964 in Egypt, part of Egyptian foreign policy of playing a regional super-power. Fatah was formed by Arafat in Algeria in early 60`s. Please note that at that time West bank and East Jerusalem were under Jordan. So, the aim was to `push the Jews into sea`. Liberation, humanism and equality are hogwash; an existential struggle is a reality.
4) Moral posturing is going to force Israelis back to pre-`67 borders.
Only the most gullible and most stupid people believe that. Israel is a narrow strip of land and they need more meat in the transverse section to wriggle out of their state of strategic disadvantage. Religion/no religion, they`ll never leave any land they`ve occupied (esp. along the width). Gaza is not a big deal, don’t be surprised if Sharon crowns some Hamas leader as the prince of Gaza and even extends some help to them. At maximum, they can support formation of a docile, well-behaved and powerless government in some parts of occupied territories. To expect anything more is to live in a fool`s paradise.
I think it is the oriental mentality that stops us from recognizing the truth even when it stares us in the face. The Chinese, Japs and other Eastern people have come out of this strange inclination to obfuscate and bury their heads in the sand, the middle-easterners and South-Asians are yet to do that. Probably, that explains the difference in their and our development indices.
There are many myths propagated by vested interests regarding Arab-Israeli dispute:
1) Palestinians are a distinct ethnic group and there was a Palestinian state during some epoch in History.
There is no difference between Jordanian Arabs and Palestinian Arabs. The term Palestinian itself was coined in 20th century to give an identity to people west of Jordan River. There has never been a monarchy or republic called Palestine/any other name that ruled exclusively the areas west of Jordan river.
2) Israel was supported by US/UK in the `48 war.
In fact, Great Britain had imposed an arms embargo in middle-east to stop the new nation from getting their weapons. Britain had a pro-Arab tilt till. They thought that a Jewish nation in middle-east was not viable and put their bets on oil-rich Arab nations.
3) PLO/Fatah is a nationalist organization with the sole aim of liberating West bank and Gaza.
PLO was founded in 1964 in Egypt, part of Egyptian foreign policy of playing a regional super-power. Fatah was formed by Arafat in Algeria in early 60`s. Please note that at that time West bank and East Jerusalem were under Jordan. So, the aim was to `push the Jews into sea`. Liberation, humanism and equality are hogwash; an existential struggle is a reality.
4) Moral posturing is going to force Israelis back to pre-`67 borders.
Only the most gullible and most stupid people believe that. Israel is a narrow strip of land and they need more meat in the transverse section to wriggle out of their state of strategic disadvantage. Religion/no religion, they`ll never leave any land they`ve occupied (esp. along the width). Gaza is not a big deal, don’t be surprised if Sharon crowns some Hamas leader as the prince of Gaza and even extends some help to them. At maximum, they can support formation of a docile, well-behaved and powerless government in some parts of occupied territories. To expect anything more is to live in a fool`s paradise.
#18 Posted by nikki7777 on July 20, 2004 6:49:30 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#17 Posted by nikki7777 on July 20, 2004 4:38:42 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#16 Posted by arjun_m on July 20, 2004 11:57:36 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#15 Posted by pmishra2 on July 20, 2004 11:57:36 am
Boy, am I sick of these palestinians and israelis. WHat a bunch of losers ! I had a better opinion of Israelis but their blundering for the last year or two makes one wonder.
Do you know that palestinians receive the largest per-capita foreign aid for any group? I believe the figure is around $5000/per palestinian. Most of it goes to Arafat`s hafta but hey, no one said charismatic revolutionary rogues come cheap!
Meanwhile, genocide stalks darfur, tens of thousands die from AIDS in South Africa, and 25 million children are out of school in South Asia. But these are non-issues. The important thing is that a no-good bunch of arabs should get to whine about their ancestral homes.
Do you know that palestinians receive the largest per-capita foreign aid for any group? I believe the figure is around $5000/per palestinian. Most of it goes to Arafat`s hafta but hey, no one said charismatic revolutionary rogues come cheap!
Meanwhile, genocide stalks darfur, tens of thousands die from AIDS in South Africa, and 25 million children are out of school in South Asia. But these are non-issues. The important thing is that a no-good bunch of arabs should get to whine about their ancestral homes.
#14 Posted by Urstruly on July 20, 2004 11:38:33 am
God, this Hindu mentality is just mind boggling. I don`t understand why some of them have to criticize anything and everything that a Paksitani utters. I can bet my ass if you tell one of them that `` Hey! I met your father yesterday. What a thorough gentleman. It is quite a pleasant experience to be around him`` and these hindus will reply ``Oh yeah - my father is a m/fing jihadi and he is training to blew himself up in a coming operation to meet 70 houris. See its Islams fault that he is my father. Imperialist Islam made him my father with a sword``.
And if you tell a hindu ``I met your father yesterday, I think he is an idiot``. The Hindu will reply ``Oh yeah, it is all because of the great Indian democracy and constitution that this gentleman is my father and today and it is the secular institutions that keep him my father. My father is a product of worlds largest democracy and my father supports Israeli democracy and your father beats up your mother``
#13 Posted by arjun_m on July 20, 2004 9:58:01 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#12 Posted by wajahat on July 20, 2004 9:58:00 am
The Entire world except the US is condemning Israel for its actions in Occupied Palestine, even India opposed Israel until the BJP Rulers who governed in the same religious biggoted lines of racial supremacy and other nonsense came to power. The Indians here keep forgetting the single fact that never in its entire history, Israel has been alone. It has been fully backed, miltarily, politically and monetarily by US, without parallel in the history of the Modern World. This is not cronyism, but absolute biggotry by a rogue Superpower run by Christain Fundamentalist backed by Zionist Institutes in the Media and Finance. This is what Israel has on its side.
The War in Iraq, the Iran issue being pumped up by that sub human American President. Are all a plan to reenforce Israel in the Middle East. But then Indians cant see that, I guess they see something in the biggotry of Israel, that matches their RSS Inhibitions of Hindu Superiority.
The War in Iraq, the Iran issue being pumped up by that sub human American President. Are all a plan to reenforce Israel in the Middle East. But then Indians cant see that, I guess they see something in the biggotry of Israel, that matches their RSS Inhibitions of Hindu Superiority.
#11 Posted by arjun_m on July 20, 2004 9:58:00 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#10 Posted by kaurasach on July 20, 2004 8:07:41 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#9 Posted by Urstruly on July 20, 2004 7:36:17 am
Ms. Zain
The international law which was the result of 10,000 years of human evolution has ceased to exist since March 19, 2003 - thanks to the axis of evil of the rogue nations like US, Britain, and Israel. The so-called international institutions are just facades behind which West dances its danse macabre now. The recent judgement of International Court of Justice on the Israeli wall is the last ditch effort by whiteman to save the credibility of the institutions that he himself had created. And what has rogue nations done to these efforts is up there to see. What is left is just sophistry, which no one is willing to buy any more.
#8 Posted by rahulmal on July 20, 2004 7:24:08 am
Same old boring rant, same self-defeating arguments, same self-serving utopia...some things never change, do they?
In 1948, there was a full-fledged war between the nascent state of Israel (total number of Jews 600,000) and seven independent Arab states. Arabs decided to not follow the UN resolution that divided Palestine in Arab dominated and Jewish states. The UN resolution gave the Jewish state 52% of the historic Palestine (i.e. after early 20th century parcelling of greater Syria as Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Palestinian mandate) , and 48% to Arab state. Arabs had no intention of accepting an `unjust` resolution as long as they had the wherewithal to capture all of Palestine and `drive the Jews into sea`, so they attacked the new state. Ben-Gurion, the cunning man that he was, used this unfavourable turn of events as an opportunity and declared that since Arabs didn`t accept the resolutions, they are non-binding for Jews as well. So, whoever gets land in war keeps it. Now, you know where 78% came from.
Attacks in `48 also show a reluctant and cunning Hashemite ruler of Jordan Abdullah throw his hat in the ring. He was not too keen on driving the Jews into sea, was not contemptuous of the Jews the way his neighbours were and had the best trained army in middle-east. His army was the only one that had notable successes in the war, and he showed his own cunning by keeping all the land given to Arab state in partition. This remained with Jordan till `67 when they lost it to Israel in the six days Yom-Kippur war.
So, the ground rules were set in `48 - ``might is right``. Just that then it was the Arabs who had the might, today it is the Jews. All this wailing about `disbalance of power` is futile. Please support Hamas if you want to see Jews taking casualties, and put your money and sweat on getting Bush defeated. Although those with a purer heart and more sense of purpose quietly donate money to philanthropic organizations and help feed the hungry around the world. To each his own!!
And for God`s sake, it is ‘imbalance’ of power and not ‘disbalance’. If you ever write an article on Indo-Pak relations, you`ll need that phrase again, so get it right :-)
In 1948, there was a full-fledged war between the nascent state of Israel (total number of Jews 600,000) and seven independent Arab states. Arabs decided to not follow the UN resolution that divided Palestine in Arab dominated and Jewish states. The UN resolution gave the Jewish state 52% of the historic Palestine (i.e. after early 20th century parcelling of greater Syria as Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Palestinian mandate) , and 48% to Arab state. Arabs had no intention of accepting an `unjust` resolution as long as they had the wherewithal to capture all of Palestine and `drive the Jews into sea`, so they attacked the new state. Ben-Gurion, the cunning man that he was, used this unfavourable turn of events as an opportunity and declared that since Arabs didn`t accept the resolutions, they are non-binding for Jews as well. So, whoever gets land in war keeps it. Now, you know where 78% came from.
Attacks in `48 also show a reluctant and cunning Hashemite ruler of Jordan Abdullah throw his hat in the ring. He was not too keen on driving the Jews into sea, was not contemptuous of the Jews the way his neighbours were and had the best trained army in middle-east. His army was the only one that had notable successes in the war, and he showed his own cunning by keeping all the land given to Arab state in partition. This remained with Jordan till `67 when they lost it to Israel in the six days Yom-Kippur war.
So, the ground rules were set in `48 - ``might is right``. Just that then it was the Arabs who had the might, today it is the Jews. All this wailing about `disbalance of power` is futile. Please support Hamas if you want to see Jews taking casualties, and put your money and sweat on getting Bush defeated. Although those with a purer heart and more sense of purpose quietly donate money to philanthropic organizations and help feed the hungry around the world. To each his own!!
And for God`s sake, it is ‘imbalance’ of power and not ‘disbalance’. If you ever write an article on Indo-Pak relations, you`ll need that phrase again, so get it right :-)
#7 Posted by rahulmal on July 20, 2004 7:24:08 am
I find references to Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other such fancy items on a South-Asian forum rather intriguing. Who are we to teach the middle-easterners to follow UN resolutions? Who are we to tell them to respect human rights? We did no such foolish thing in `47, not before, not after.
And for God`s sake no stirring the hornet`s nest by poking with short sticks like ``Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.`` you`ll have to run for cover if that nest breaks, and all those creatures with fangs rush after you, baying for your blood and more.
What if Hindus start demanding similar rights in their land of birth, what if Pakistani Mohajirs do that? And then, it`ll NOT be an issue of few millions, it`ll be few crores.
And for God`s sake no stirring the hornet`s nest by poking with short sticks like ``Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.`` you`ll have to run for cover if that nest breaks, and all those creatures with fangs rush after you, baying for your blood and more.
What if Hindus start demanding similar rights in their land of birth, what if Pakistani Mohajirs do that? And then, it`ll NOT be an issue of few millions, it`ll be few crores.
#6 Posted by wajahat on July 20, 2004 7:24:08 am
#1 Nikki
``Isn`t it the palestinians who threw the first stone by not coming terms with reality way back in 1945?``
This is exactly the kind of Bulls**t Propaganda that the American Media controlled by the Zionist Jewry has been peddalling for the last 55 years. Lets see this in another light, The Germans Killed the Jews all over europe, England and the US, mindful of the mass immigration conveniantely allowed the creation of a Jewish nation to solve the plight of the Europeon Jew. And Nikki wants the Palestinian who were disposed off their own land in the name of a 2000 year old historic story, to come to reality. Irony or Ironies.
#2 Solitude
``This is an Islamic Militant struggle to kill jews and take over Jerusalem for Islam``
This has been a regional struggle, only politicised due to Israel cruel Barbarity which has been persistant for over 55 years. If I came to your house and overtook it by killing members of your family and on the rule of the gun, and called your house my property, would you pack your bags and leave, as nikki7777 says, come to reality. This is not a Political issue, this is a freedom fight, by some very brave Palestinians.
``Isn`t it the palestinians who threw the first stone by not coming terms with reality way back in 1945?``
This is exactly the kind of Bulls**t Propaganda that the American Media controlled by the Zionist Jewry has been peddalling for the last 55 years. Lets see this in another light, The Germans Killed the Jews all over europe, England and the US, mindful of the mass immigration conveniantely allowed the creation of a Jewish nation to solve the plight of the Europeon Jew. And Nikki wants the Palestinian who were disposed off their own land in the name of a 2000 year old historic story, to come to reality. Irony or Ironies.
#2 Solitude
``This is an Islamic Militant struggle to kill jews and take over Jerusalem for Islam``
This has been a regional struggle, only politicised due to Israel cruel Barbarity which has been persistant for over 55 years. If I came to your house and overtook it by killing members of your family and on the rule of the gun, and called your house my property, would you pack your bags and leave, as nikki7777 says, come to reality. This is not a Political issue, this is a freedom fight, by some very brave Palestinians.
#5 Posted by arjun_m on July 20, 2004 7:24:07 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#4 Posted by harish_hyd on July 20, 2004 7:24:06 am
I must say this is an extremely one-sided picture that apportions all blame on the Israelis. Israel has only done (wall, fences, etc.) what any self-respecting nation would have done against a bunch of murderers that the Palestinians are. If only the Indian Government had done that, Akshardham and the attack on the Indian Parliament would never have happened.
Freedom for the Palestinians is possible only when they give up violence. The Palestinians have only weakened their case by resorting to violence against innocent Israeli civilians (just as the Kashmiris have done in our part of the woods). Agreed, the Israeli soldiers do that too, but the Palestinians have proved they are no better than the Israelis. What moral right do they then have to claim the Israelis are brutal?
The only solution is that Israel vacate West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but for that to happen, all violence from the Palestinian side must cease. I think the Oslo Accord of 1993 said exactly that. Alas, it did not make much headway. Until and unless Palestinians realize that violence is only damaging their cause, prospects of a solution look rather bleak.
Freedom for the Palestinians is possible only when they give up violence. The Palestinians have only weakened their case by resorting to violence against innocent Israeli civilians (just as the Kashmiris have done in our part of the woods). Agreed, the Israeli soldiers do that too, but the Palestinians have proved they are no better than the Israelis. What moral right do they then have to claim the Israelis are brutal?
The only solution is that Israel vacate West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but for that to happen, all violence from the Palestinian side must cease. I think the Oslo Accord of 1993 said exactly that. Alas, it did not make much headway. Until and unless Palestinians realize that violence is only damaging their cause, prospects of a solution look rather bleak.
#3 Posted by solitude on July 19, 2004 9:30:02 pm
This is an Islamic Militant struggle to kill jews and take over Jerusalem for Islam. To pretend that this is some struggle of ``Palestenians`` is an insult to intelligence. It might work with the gullible westerners but don`t insult us Muslims with this drivel!
Below is a Palestenian in the backdrop with the Israeli soldiers upfront.
Pakistanis have spent too much of their time and energy on Palestenians and Chechnians and Bosnians and Algerians and Philipinos while our country goes to hell.
Below is a Palestenian in the backdrop with the Israeli soldiers upfront.
Pakistanis have spent too much of their time and energy on Palestenians and Chechnians and Bosnians and Algerians and Philipinos while our country goes to hell.
#2 Posted by nisreenzain on July 19, 2004 9:30:02 pm
nikki7777:
You are right when you say that the entire `blame`, or the word I`d rather use ` responsibility` should not be placed on Israel. The Arabs should do more than just complain about the matter, but that does not mean that Israel shouldn`t make any efforts at a reconciliation. And it does not change the fact that Israel has not abided by numerous United Nations` resolutions. The building of a wall isn`t exactly a reconciliatory effort, Israel is further isolating the Palestinians.
Yes, I concur with the plight of the Jews from Russia, Poland, Romania and other eastern european countries who emigrated to Palestine and we can all blame the British, who with the issuance of the Balfour Declaration, conveniently stated Palestine the land of the Jewish people, but the point is, at the end of the day, it is the people of Palestine and Israel who are at a loss and it is they, themselves who gain most from reaching a reconciliation of some kind, but does Israel truly support a two-state theory, which seems like the only possible compromise to the conflict ?
It`s ironic that you are just shifting the blame. Let`s start with the root of the problem. Israel was a country created by usurping the land that already belonged to another country and it`s people.
You are right when you say that the entire `blame`, or the word I`d rather use ` responsibility` should not be placed on Israel. The Arabs should do more than just complain about the matter, but that does not mean that Israel shouldn`t make any efforts at a reconciliation. And it does not change the fact that Israel has not abided by numerous United Nations` resolutions. The building of a wall isn`t exactly a reconciliatory effort, Israel is further isolating the Palestinians.
Yes, I concur with the plight of the Jews from Russia, Poland, Romania and other eastern european countries who emigrated to Palestine and we can all blame the British, who with the issuance of the Balfour Declaration, conveniently stated Palestine the land of the Jewish people, but the point is, at the end of the day, it is the people of Palestine and Israel who are at a loss and it is they, themselves who gain most from reaching a reconciliation of some kind, but does Israel truly support a two-state theory, which seems like the only possible compromise to the conflict ?
It`s ironic that you are just shifting the blame. Let`s start with the root of the problem. Israel was a country created by usurping the land that already belonged to another country and it`s people.
#1 Posted by nikki7777 on July 19, 2004 5:05:56 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
