The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Interrupting a history of tolerance - Part I > Comments

Interrupting a history of tolerance - Part I : Comments

By Riaz Hassan, published 31/7/2007

There were outside forces that promoted anti-Semitism in an otherwise tolerant Arab world.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
It has been my understanding that the Arabs are a Semitic people. I think the label of anti-Semitic is inaccurate in this regard. Anti-Jewish - perhaps, but anti-Semitic makes no sense.
Posted by My name is Dylan, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 9:33:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is simply untrue that there was no antisemitism in the Islamic world, though it varied from country to country as it did in Europe. But its origins are irrelevant; it exists there now - read the daily press, the Hamas covenant, Ahmadinejad's pronouncements etc - and the only question that interests me is what Muslim nations and individuals going to do about it, blame the nasty colonialists or take some responsibility.
Posted by Eebee, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 11:14:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One only has to read the book "Blood Brothers", by Elias Chacour, a Palestinian Christian, to realise that so called Anti-Semitism is justified, particularly in Palestine where over one million Palestinians Arabs, both Christian and Muslim were displaced by the deceit of Zionists.
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 11:46:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's a real subtle point VK3AUU,about as sensible as saying we should kill Australian Muslims for the actions of their co-religionists in Darfur.
Posted by Eebee, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 1:04:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The best lies, even the most virulently unjust propaganda, always include a grain of truth.

Israel is indeed a recidivist war criminal. Its recurring bombardment and permanent blockade of Gaza, deliberate maiming of innocent targets by snipers, deliberate targeting of journalists and community leaders, the 7-metre concrete apartheid "fence" -- right up to today, it works to ensure that its occupation is a reign of terror.

Of course the crimes of Israel are a source of great resentment on the part of Palestinians, just as the crimes of the USA are a source of resentment amongst Native Americans, Latin Americans, Vietnamese, Iraqis and many others.

But Israel's crimes do not, under any circumstances, justify hatred of the Jewish race.

It must be remembered that anti-semitism preceded and *caused* Zionism. The racial and millennial language of Zionism grew from the same fertile Imperial Viennese cosmopolitan melting-pot that nurtured the idea of an Aryan master race, as well as the science of Boltzmann, Suess and Freud; the music of Mahler and Strauss.

Without a thousand years of virulent anti-semitism in Christendom, it would not have become a plank of Nazism. Without the Pale and the Shoah, European Jewry would not have emigrated en masse. Without Zionist millenialism, those Jews would have come instead to America, Australia and South Africa (even as it was, until the 1930s less than 1% of that Diaspora headed to Palestine).

Without the agitation of 20th-century anti-semitism in the Middle East, violent confrontation between Zionists and innocent Palestinians could have been averted. Without the paternalism of the British administration, Palestine might have remained a multi-ethnic colony rather than becoming the only modern State with a constitution founded on discrimination by religion (which, by the nature of the religion in question, becomes effectively discrimination by race).

So many might-have-beens. None of which justifies racial hatred. Even today, opportunities remain open for justice. Better to sieze them than to dwell on whose hatred is worthy.
Posted by xoddam, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 1:12:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Xoddam said “Israel … occupation is a reign of terror” Xoddam you are just another unpleasant apologist for the Palestinian Islamo-fascists. Israel has had to defend itself from invasion by its neighbours at least three times since 1945. It suffers from violence so random and devastating that it is a wonder they haven’t expelled all Palestinians from their country.

The Palestinians have until recently opted for peace through victory rather than through negotiation. Israel has long behaved as a nation which knows it must come to some agreement with the Palestinians. This is demonstrated by the tolerance of Yasser Arafats Fatah and the many Palestinians who live and work in Israel. The Israelis could have evicted both of these groups militarily if they wanted to.

Apartheid? The Afrikaners in South Africa didn’t want to associate with black Africans because they felt superior to them and intended to show it. The Israelis don’t want to mix with Palestinians because there is every chance that they might be carrying a bomb strapped to their body. I don’t know how you would react if you felt it wasn’t safe for your children to ride the bus to school, or eat at a restaurant, but I assume it wouldn’t be an invitation for the perpetrators to come and live next door. Or allow them to drive around your neighbourhood looking for the best target. Discrimination by religion is the hallmark of most modern Islamic states so Israel is hardly breaking ground new ground on this front.

But there is no way that Israel has a policy of targeting non combatants. Whilst innocents are certainly the victims of Israeli action, this is virtually always the unfortunate by product of an attempt to kill terrorist leaders who use their people as a shield behind which to hide. The Palestinians, on the other hand, deliberately attack innocent civilians for maximum horror. Until the Palestinians renounce terror and work toward a peaceful settlement with Israel, I cannot find fault with Israel’s attempts to defend itself
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 2:11:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'But Israel's crimes do not, under any circumstances, justify hatred of the Jewish race...

So many might-have-beens. None of which justifies racial hatred. Even today, opportunities remain open for justice. Better to sieze them than to dwell on whose hatred is worthy.'

Xoddam is just so accurate and I fully agree.

And it is opinions such as Paul L's that prevent peace.

I'd wager Paul L, if he's even thought about them, supports Israel retaining the illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine and the illegal annexation of Palestinian land by the 'peace serving' wall.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 4:00:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is insane! You are a denier of reality! Hitler got the idea about putting the Star of David to identify Jews from Islamic history!

NOBODY BELIEVES YOU.

I am truly sick and tired of hearing Islam means peace. Mohammed Haneef thought he needed to spell this out at a press conference, which says it all really.

The word peace in English doesn't have the same connotations of peace in Islam. In Islam it means 'submission', 'surrender', not peace as westerners understand it.

Why aren't we allowed to be critical of Islam without getting death threats, or charges of intolerance? The former proves Islam isn't peaceful, and the latter is insane given all people like me want to do is point out intolerance where it actually exists. How dare it be such that one can say it is peaceful and people are in such fear that we can't even respond truthfully!

Why aren't we allowed to mock Islam for it's values, of ordering the death of apostates? Or homosexuals? Why can't we harrass Saudi Arabia for not allowing even one church on it's soil? How can people not see how violent and intolerant Islam is?

Why aren't Muslims protesting for the equal treatment of non-Muslims in their societies?

Where are the media publications mocking Islamic figures like the father of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khoemeini, an immoral paedophile who lowered the age of consent in Iran to just nine for girls, because he wanted to emulate the Prophet who actually had a six year old wife?

These assertions are all within the sacred Islamic texts themselves, yet they still revere him. It's madness.

Islam has to answer to reason. Until it does, at which point I believe it will collapse, Islamic supremacism - which, far from starting on 9/11 has been around for 1400 years, will always be knawing away at the civilised western world.

If you really care about how Arabs are percieved, start protesting about FGM, honour killings, how your youth form ethnic packs and bash 'skips', and arranged marriages (XENOPHOBIC to the core).

I pity you.
Posted by White Warlock, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 5:05:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
High praise indeed from you, Paul!

Until Israel renounces terror, I am merely saddened -- not surprised -- that a few nutcases choose death over enduring humiliation. I offer no apologies for the brutal and desperate act of suicide bombing.

The actions of a purportedly democratic state, on the other hand, should be and are subjected to public scrutiny. Documenting the brutality of the instruments of state is *not* an apologia for the enemies of that state, but an act of peace.

Precisely because Israel is (selectively) democratic, public scrutiny and activism has made Israel's policies and weapons somewhat less lethal over time: from machine guns to bulldozers, rubber (-coated steel) bullets to sand dollars, the death toll of the occupation is declining. For some years now Israeli soldiers have been under unofficial orders to *injure*, not kill, Palestinians who stand in their way. Yet as you acknowledge, it is inevitable that some die.

The targetted individuals are not all "terrorists", but also activists (including several foreigners -- regrettably but inevitably their deaths are better documented than the average Palestinian's), reporters, and community leaders. Of course these victims aren't maimed or killed by the same squads of "hitmen" sent after belligerent leaders of armed organisations, but by nominally "non-lethal" weapons like rubber bullets and bulldozers. The right tool for the job, I suppose.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1030-05.htm

Would you like me to praise Israel for its policy of selectively assassinating known opponents, armed and unarmed, rather than simply slaughtering suspects and bystanders en masse?

I suppose I can acknowledge it's a lesser war-crime. Yet due process (without the death penalty) would be far preferable!

Yet Israel's idea of due process, as applied to non-citizen Palestinians, is laughable:

http://www.addameer.org/detention/background.html

(Especially when contrasted with Israel's response to hostage-taking of two professional soldiers in Lebanon last year).
Posted by xoddam, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 5:09:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part One

We could begin by declaring that a Reborn Israel is an example of how America, a Christian nation that is now unipolar and virtual ruler of the globe, has relied more on sheer power, rather than a democratic balance of global power.

For example, it could be said that American support for the re-birth of Israel has not only created problems with the Arabs from the beginning of Jewish re-settlement but the existence of the reborn Israel will create endless concerns in the future,

A small section of British authority foresaw the above after WW2 when the persecuted Jews mostly from Germany after the Nazi Death Camps requested that they permanently settle back in Jerusalem after more than two thousand years.

Unreasonably, there was no plebiscite allowed for the Arabs who had believed it had become an Arab possession with Jewish families allowed to live peacefully among them.

Indeed, it has been suggested that the Jewish families could have been filtered into the United States, as well as the former British Commonwealth of Nations, where they have become so respected and admired.

But once the revived state of Israel was set up by still a somewhat reluctant British government, it was obvious the Arabs would not be happy.

At the same time Britain stood by perplexed when soon after the revived Jewish state came into being and with the Arabs already angrily massing, the canny US Foreign Minister, Henry Kissinger began shipping planes and tanks to Israel, while at the same time trying to calm the Arabs.

Then came the two short wars separated by a number of years, the new Israelis with military like determination and American equipment, both times had the Arabs on the run, the new reborn Israelis not only victorious, but extending Israel into Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.

We have thus a small nation comprised of intelligent - bound to be proud - people undemocratically letting a virtually worn-out religious doctrine upset the democratic balance of power in today’s Middle East.
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 5:10:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd bet Keith believes Israeli's should just pack up and go home.

I do not understand how any fair minded person could look at the predicament of either the Palestinians or the Israelis and not see that both have suffered terribly.

The Israeli's blame the Palestinians and retaliate.

The Palestinians blame the Israeli's and retaliate.

This is a cycle that has no end.

It is just plain stupid.

Blame is easy. Just selectively pick the bits of history that suit your purpose. Both sides have committed plenty of attrocities from which to choose. All of you who perpetuate this thinking by ranting about how it's all one side's fault or the other are either stupid. Or motivated by malice because you don't want to see an end to the cycle. Your a part of the problem.

It is honestly sad to see how few people in any of the many threads on this subject are even interested in discussing solutions.
Posted by Kalin1, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 5:18:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinions such as mine prevent peace? Its opinions such as your which stifle debate. I was just pointing out the one sidedness of the criticisms of Israel that is typical of the soft left, while they neglect the repulsive acts of the Palestinian suicide bombers.

I am fully aware of Israeli attempts to extend their borders using settlements. They were especially active in the 70’s and 80’s as pre 1967 the Israeli state was less than 8kms across at its narrowest point. At that stage there was significant support for the idea of strategic enlargement of the country. The idea was to prevent an Arab army driving to the sea and cutting Israel in half thereby bringing about the fall of the state. This came to include strategic settlements emplaced by General Sharon in order to give Israel a ‘defensible border’. Syria used the Golan Heights to rocket and shell Israeli towns and cities until the Israeli army captured it. Hafez Assad, then Syria's Defense Minister declared: “The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." Those words should sound familiar because Muslim leaders still make remarks like that today. I do not support Israel retaining settlements outside the pre 1967 borders.

As for the wall, it is temporary and is not a claim of sovereignty. Where possible, negotiation with village chiefs on the location of the wall was carried out. Elsewhere new roads and access point were built for Palestinians to ease the burden. Those whose land was subsumed receive annual compensation although where possible the wall was built on state land. The final borders will only be decided by negotiation between the parties. The wall has however been a successful in its reduction of terror attacks inside Israel.

Blaming the Israelis for the current state of affairs is one eyed and counterproductive. I’m all for peace in Israel/Palestine, I just get sick of hearing the soft lefties flagellating the western world for our supposed crimes and blaming us for all the trouble in the world, whilst totally ignoring the far more extreme behaviour of the terrorists
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 5:26:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The writer in his article does not mention that there is a big difference, a world of difference between anti-semitism and anti-zionism.
Many zionists today, based on a nationalist outlook are shifting ground rapidly, heading to the far right towards fascism and many have landed there. It may sound contradictory after all the horrific experiences including the holocaust but that is the end road or deadend of nationalism. Of course any criticism levelled against zionism they opportunistically decry anti-semitism. Which is not true.
Clearly, in the midst of an economic crisis wracking Germany in the 1930's the extreme right wing elements (grounded in nationalism)in Germany and around the globe scapegoated the jews for all the economic ills of society. As the nazi propaganda minister Goebels explained "you blame your enemy with what you yourself are doing." However, for this case it was the economic system that crashed and still in freefall after the Great Depression, never righting itself, spiralling all the way downwards into World War2.
Many jews were in the leadership of the workers movement in Germany and had an international socialist outlook. To their credit they scorned all forms of nationalism. This is what fueled much of Hitlerite fascism's hatred of jews; which is anti-semitism.
Posted by johncee1945, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 5:59:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the Jews have had it pretty hard since Roman times.

It s such a pity it was out of the frying pan and into (not as bad) fire when they left Europe for Israel.

From my perspective there was always going to be a reaction to the setting up of a Jewish state in Arab land.

You know thats all history now and Israel is here to stay. But what is next?

Surely what is best is to work for peace with all and that means development of all the economies in the region. Especially with regard to fresh water supplies.

Why did the Europeans have such a thing about the Jews I wonder?

There was no instance of violence towards them until the crusades.

Is hatred of Jews is a political tool? Create the demon then "bash" the demon and by this control the people?
Posted by Jellyback, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 3:05:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To the RACIST author,

You are a pathetic little troll. How can you have the hide to attempt to abject the entirety of Islamic racism onto the West?

If what you say is true, then ask yourself this:
1) Jews are from the Middle East originally (Jerusalim area)
2) Jews prospered in Europe, even though there was lots of anti-Semitism and persecution, on the whole they must have been treated well as how esle could they have achieved such a high level of
education, achievement by way of contributing great thinkers and scientists to the world, and such a high level of economic prosperity?
3) There are no famous Jewish thinkers (comparable to those in Western history) in Arab countries, there is also no sizable portion of Jewish amongst the wealthy and elites of the Arab world.
4) How can one see this obvious evidence and still think that anti-Semitism must have been given to Arabs from the West?

On Mohammed's death bed he asked for there to be no religion other than Islam in Arabia, and that all the Jews should be massacred, as he did of the Jewish tribes in his life.

European history did have lots of anti-Semitism (or anti-Jewishness), probably due to the deicide factor. However, above all it is the tribal (or ethnic) mentality that breeds fear, racism, and vile hatred of the "other", and above all other factors, this is what the Arab Muslim lands are still fully immersed in, whilst the Europeans largely overcame that mindset due to Reason and Rationality, things learnt in the cultural overhaul called the "Enlightenment".

This is why we are able to invite millions of migrants from Arab lands to live here as equals, but not even one church exists in the Gulf Arab states.

Also, I think the worst act of anti-Jewishness in history was when the caliph just after the prophet built a mosque on top of the holiest Jewish site, and to this day they don't remove it out of good faith. This is the source of all their racism, and the proof of it.
Posted by White Warlock, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 10:34:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
XODDAM

well.. we don't need to ask which side of the fence you are on eh....
You nailed your colors pretty well to the forum mast quick smart.

There is only one bad guy "Israel".

There is only one good guy "Palestinians"

Unfortunately, you appear to either condone or be ignorant of the genocidal Hamas Charter, perhaps you should read it..THEN... tell us clearly IF YOU SUPPORT IT.

http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html

Specially provide us with your opinion on Part III, article 11

1/ Agree ?
2/ Disagree?

Then we will know how to understand you. (so will the AFP)

I think you should connect with this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVAc5RPfAfQ&mode=related&search=
Its current, from Sydney.

This one..from New York.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO74GwUTZj4

Notice the use of the words "Jews..Khaibar" many times... if you doubt there was anti semitism (anti Jew) sentiment among the early Muslims, you need to read up on Khaybar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar

For a full report read:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Muir/Life4/chap21.htm

You can draw your own conclusions about all this. But I think it is not historically fair to say there was no anti-Jewish sentiment in early Islam, no matter how justified Muslims may suggest it was.
Just SEE the number of video's referencing it here.

Iranian Rifle named after it.
Hezbollah Missile named after it.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Khaibar

Then look at this one particularly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHC-tfOvXGA (it will save you some reading)

FH.. if you come here.. mate..I'm just addressing the topic :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 10:59:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BB - Part Two

Possibly necessary for protection, but without much global commonsense, was the later US conspiring with Israel to let her go militarily nuclear, which has made long-term peace for an Islamic Middle-East virtually only a Roman-style peace, in which US unilateral power holds sway. Further, to hold Middle East peace, the only Middle East Islamic nation of size, Iran might have to be militarily subdued by the US, to hold a very undemocratic peace, as the US and her allies have done with Iraq, and now onto Iran.

To any qualified historian, Iran itself since Persian times has never attacked another country, yet was occupied by the US after WW2, but with Iran later booting out the puppet Shah. Further, with US backing, Iran was also attacked by Saddam’s Iraq in 1981, Iran without any other nation to back her, was nevertheless victorious after eight years of fighting.

Moreover, while such political problems should be handled by a strong resolute democratic United Nations, the UN these days seems to be mostly represented by Condoleeza Rice, the sitting UN President only a US lackey, chosen deliberately from a Third World nation by means of US pressure.

Finally, it is obvious that the Middle East problem has become a philosophical one rather than a truly political one.

Indeed, it is true that the more fruitful peaceful turnings in history have been brought on by philosophers such as Socrates, St Thomas Aquinas and John Locke of Britain.

Just as Thomas Aquinas lifted Christianity out of the Dark Ages, John Locke carried on the task in 1688 to lift Britain from the clutches of autocratic religious royalty, his democratic doctrine later patterning the US Constitution, but still somewhat weakened more recently by allowing the ridiculous concept of the prerogative, to let President Bush interfere with rules that encourage genuine peaceful democracy rather than all-out war.
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 12:06:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul L, thankyou for the measured tone of your second post here. I agree with much you say there, specifically about the gradual softening of the official Israeli line.

I do think that, despite compensation payments and rhetoric, the wall is a de facto land grab, and that Israeli soldiers go in for "extreme behaviour" just as vile as that of the Palestinian militants -- taking pot-shots at children and peace activists with rubber (-coated steel) bullets, for instance.

David/Boaz, my colours are indeed nailed to the mast: I think democracies should be held to acount for their crimes of war!

I don't think Israel is the only bad guy or that the Palestinians are all good guys. There are criminals and victims on both sides of the fence. The difference is that Israel's crimes are committed by the soldiers and officials of a democratic state, acting in the name of its citizens.

I do not support the Hamas charter. I *disagree* with Part III, Article 11, of the Hamas charter. I don't submit to Islamic law, nor do I support those who would impose it on non-Muslims. In particular I support the right of Muslims to turn apostate with impunity.

I think Islam is not a peaceful religion, and that it always had some anti-Jewish sentiment. Yet I understand that for most of the period 1000-1945, Jewish people living under Islamic law were less harshly persecuted than the Jews of Christendom. It is obvious and well-documented that European anti-semitic propaganda found fertile soil amongst 20th-century Islamists.

I do not advocate the destruction of the state of Israel, nor the bombing of Israeli residents.

I give no credence to any of the ludicrous anti-semitic "documentaries" or conspiracy theories floating around.

No more do I support those holy fools who blow themselves up on trains beneath London or aeroplanes above New York.

Yet the crimes of the Israeli state speak for themselves.

The acts of the Palestinian militia are no less criminal.

Both are quite well-documented. It irks me, though, that the names of Palestinian victims are rarely mentioned in English.
Posted by xoddam, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 5:22:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbred, I am sure you are aware that the Serbs and Croats used incidents which occurred many hundreds of years ago in order to justify their actions during the Balkan wars. The ancient history of Israel and the Arabs is irrelevant, no matter who uses it. I am fully aware that some Israelis use that history as a pretext. The Arabs do likewise. It is still irrelevant.

You said “A small section of British authority foresaw the above … when the persecuted Jews mostly from Germany … requested that they permanently settle back in Jerusalem ….” By 1938 there were already more than half a million Jews living in Palestine. The British were granted a protectorate over Palestine by the League of Nations in 1922 with the express directive to create a Jewish State. In 1939 a British white paper was developed on the issue of Palestine which was overwhelmingly considered to be a bad deal for the Jews. However the Arab delegations wouldn’t even meet to discuss the division of Palestine into two states. They decided they were going to keep the lot.

You have neglected to mention that the Arabs started the 1948, 1967 and 1973 wars with the intention of destroying the Israeli state and driving the Jews into the sea. ( A goal you seem to be implying is a worthy one). Israel kept the land that it won from the Arabs in 1967 mostly to use as a bargaining chip for peace. As you know when Egypt normalised its relations with Israel they returned the Sinai.

Funnily enough no one wanted to see wholesale slaughter of Jews in 1948 so is it all that surprising that the US helped the Israelis with the arms they needed to defend themselves.

Whatever you want to pretend about Iran, two things are clear. Iran is heavily involved in the war in Iraq for its strategic benefit. Iran is working towards an Arab Bomb and given the bloodcurdling rhetoric coming for its leaders, will use it on Israel the first chance they get
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 7:39:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont’
Bushbred

You said “people undemocratically letting a … religious doctrine upset the democratic balance of power” Democracy? In the Middle East? There is no such thing. Israel’s enemies aren’t democratic. You think Hamas are democrats. By the way are you suggesting that there is no room for Jews in the Middle East?

You said ”… political problems should be handled by a strong … democratic United Nations” The UN is a farce mostly because of the Security Council. How is it democratic if it takes only one members' veto to terminate an otherwise majority supported resolution? Also, giving non democratic countries a seat on the security council was an unfortunate mistake. I believe that a UN style body could be very useful in the modern world, but the current one sadly does not work.

Xoddam

you said “David/Boaz, my colours are indeed nailed to the mast: I think democracies should be held to acount for their crimes of war!” This is precisely my point, what about Palestinian war crimes? Don’t they need to be held to account?

You said ” It irks me, though, that the names of Palestinian victims are rarely mentioned in English” The names of the victims of the Palestinian suicide bombers aren’t exactly household names either.

You said” Israeli soldiers go in for "extreme behaviour" just as vile as that of the Palestinian militants -- taking pot-shots at children and peace activists with rubber (-coated steel) bullets, for instance” Mate in what world is it that shooting rubber bullets ( almost always non lethal ) at people in any way compares with detonating a bomb on a schoolbus? The difference is Israeli soldiers who are caught deliberately killing or maiming Palestinian civilians are punished under the law. I know that they aren’t always caught. But Palestinian who kill civilians are lauded, even revered.

I’ll put it another way. It is the Israeli policy to avoid civilian casualties wherever possible. Again it doesn’t always work that way. But it is the policy of Hamas and Fatah etc. to kill as many civilians as they possibly can
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 7:43:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi People... well between Xoddams (gracious) reply, and Paul L's expansion on the issue, we are gaining a much more balanced picture of things.

FRANK.. yes, I did select David Hicks mainly because I don't see how 'our' law can apply to him when he is picked up in a war zone by others, and handed to others to be dealt with. Our law simply does not apply, so, why do we wring our hands about 'fair trial'....in my view, he is a 'POW' indefinitely until the cessation of hostilities.

I question the growing idea that Jews were more harshly treated under 'Christian' power structures than Islamic, I won't 'deny' it, I just don't know.. from what I read, it seems both the Islamic and Christendom streams of history have had their anti semitic moments.

The worst anti Jewish propoganda the 'Protocals of Zion' emerged from the atheist Stalinist and Nazi mobs.

On the subject of "Tolerance" generally, we just need to learn ONE major lesson. "Do not tolerate INtolerance", because most of the crys and wails against 'intolerance' comes from the most rabidly INtolerant mobs around like the Marxists, Greens, Democrats, Paedophiles and other socio/political rabble. (I wonder of people read this far :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 2 August 2007 6:19:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, I believe Palestinian militants should also be held to account for their crimes. The Palestinian "state" is not a functional one and cannot be held to the standards of a democracy; despite "free-and-fair" elections the parties are closer to demagogic paramilitary organisations than functioning wheels of a democratic polity.

I have no respect for Hamas' stated policy at all and, while I admired PLO/Fatah for its tenacity, the militant tail always wagged the political dog -- unlike the comparable ANC, whose paramilitary wing sabotaged inanimate infrastructure. I doubt Fatah policy was ever "to kill as many civilians as possible".

It would be a bad joke to suggest that Palestine could be held accountable when, as soon as elections are over, its leaders are imprisoned. Not that those arrested didn't deserve to be, but there's a double standard that points up clearly who really holds the reins of power. Other countries have been known to elect war criminals to lead them!

"Rarely lethal" when compared with the regular lead type, rubber bullets leave their "rare" victims are just as dead. Many others are left permanently maimed or brain-damaged. Firing on children in the street from a watchtower *is* as vile as blowing yourself up on a schoolbus.

It's not true that Israeli soldiers are "invariably" prosecuted for targeting civlians -- as in any army there is a strong loyalty to the corps. Official investigations more often than not exonerate not only the chain of command but even the individual who pulled the trigger (or drove the bulldozer). Some soldiers have been prosecuted for clear violations of orders. Yet the "targeted assassination" project of 2003 coincided with the "accidental" deaths of numerous inconvenient bystanders. Who's to say those soldiers weren't following orders from the very top?

BOAZ_David: The _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_ was trumped up in France in the 1890s. No Nazis or Stalinists involved, though the author may have been Russian. It was largely plagiarised from Maurice Joly's philosophical 1864 satire _Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu_ which was anti-Napoleonic, not remotely anti-semitic.
Posted by xoddam, Thursday, 2 August 2007 10:34:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paull, there is a scientific thesis based on the Concept of a peaceful balance of power, which suggests that if one of the adversaries is allowed to be heavily armed and the other not, the other adversary must be armed similarly, epecially in the dangerous situation of nuclear weaponry.

So we have Israel and Iran, Paull, and do you really expect Iran to keep quiet with Israel not only with the most modern atomic weaponry, but also with the US behind her?

PS Might pay you to read a few books on power balance matey, plenty in the universities. Hop in before Howard prunes down the Humanities.
Posted by bushbred, Friday, 3 August 2007 7:19:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BushBred, I am well aware of the theory of MAD. It relies upon both antagonists desire to continue living and prospering. I am not so sure that the Ayatollahs of this world really qualify on that basis.

Iran would be in no danger from the US and Israel if it wasn’t 1. supporting Hezbollah 2. chasing nuclear weapons. I can’t believe that you think Iran is a responsible member of the global community.

Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."

Ahmedinejhad said “Our dear Imam (Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."

These are the people you think should have the bomb.

PS might pay you to remember your living in the real world where theory is usually redundant. I already have a background in the humanities and I swallowed all the bs the far lefties fed me. I woke up when I made it into the real world
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 3 August 2007 9:29:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul, the translation is wrong.

Ahmadinejad's actual words were:

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

Translated into English, this is:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Nothing about maps, nothing about ethnic cleansing.

Ahmadinejad went on express hope that the Israeli state would suffer the same fate as the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was not "wiped from the map" in the sense of having its peoples expelled from their territory -- rather, the regime collapsed and the people once oppressed by it now have a different form of government.

A full and fair discussion of the translation, and Ahmadinejad's (somewhat evasive) response to questions about the statement, is here:

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

Ahmadinejad is an implacable opponent of Zionism, but he has never publicly expressed a desire to expel or exterminate the Jewish people from the land of Israel.
Posted by xoddam, Monday, 6 August 2007 11:05:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
European-flavoured anti-Semitism should not be mixed up with Islamic militant anti-Jewish religious sentiments... which go back 14 centuries…and are deeply ingrained in the Qur’an.

Can anyone here show us a time in history where "Palestine" was an autonomous state? In other words were there ever such a “self governing” country called Palestine?

Regardless of who or what we can blame today for the existence of the modern State of Israel – no one can charge Jews for returning to their rightful homeland.

The Israeli conflict is, and always has been, religious intolerance dating back to time immemorial. Islam is but the new player against the rightful citizens of Israel – God’s people
Posted by coach, Friday, 10 August 2007 11:12:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
These "Johnny come latelys" who have come flocking to Palestine since the formation of the state of Israel have no more "right" to be there than the "Man in the Moon". I have never heard so much twaddle. Just because someone's forebears decided to embrace the Jewish faith gives them no right to take over the home of a Palestinian whose forebears have lived in the country since time immemoriam.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 10 August 2007 11:34:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
VK3AUU

I am not sure how long you have to live somewhere in order to not be a ‘Johnny come lately’ Maybe you can clear that up for me.

Can I assume you are happy to give your home back to the Aborigines who occupied this country for 40,000 years before you got here? Or have you made your own treaty with them?

I assume you are talking about the Palestinian right of return to actual houses and not a homeland as such. Since Israel, as a sovereign nation, can allow unlimited immigration if it wants.

During the 1948 war the old city of Jerusalem was taken by the Jordanian Army. Until that time, Jews and Arabs had been living together in the old city. Jews were forced to leave their homes and the area came under Jordanian control. No Palestinian state was created because the ARAB GOV”Ts of the region didn’t want the Palestinians to have one.

Nearly twenty years later, after Arab armies again tried to destroy Israel, the city of Jerusalem and the West Bank were retaken by the Israelis. This time Arab families were forced to flee.

Are you surprised that Israel doesn’t want Palestinians living in Israeli territory until an end to the conflict has been achieved?

Population increases since the formation of the state in 1948 have been mostly from the countries of the old Soviet Block, who were persecuted religiously under communist rule
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 10 August 2007 1:37:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paull, the fact that I may or may not be entitled to live in Australia has no relevance to my argument about the occupation of Israel by Zionists. You are probably right, but that does not make my argument wrong. Try again.
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 10 August 2007 10:23:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy