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 > Iran's infantile attitude to Israel > Comments

Iran's infantile attitude to Israel : Comments

By Irfan Yusuf, published 3/11/2005

Irfan Yusuf argues Muslim nations should not follow the Iranian formula in their dealings with Israel.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Well said Irfan.

for the record, when Pat Robertson alluded to 'assassinating' Chaves, I took the trouble to write and rebuke him in the Lords name ! as I'm sure a lot of caring Christians also did.

On the Iranian matter, I'm wondering how much of what he says comes from his 'Islamic' background, and how much is coming from the "Persian" aspect.

It would make an interesting psychological study.

Its also rather ironic to consider that the best deal Israel ever had in its past history was from King Cyrus the Great, the enlightened Persian, who resTORED them from exile to the land they now occupy.

Perhaps Ahmedinajab or however u say his name will go an now desecrate any memorial to Cyrus ?

The REAL first Crusade in 732 (The Muslim one)

<<Then Abderrahman, [the Muslim emir] seeing the land filled with the multitude of his army, crossed the Pyrenees, and traversed the defiles [in the mountains] and the plains, so that he penetrated ravaging and slaying clear into the lands of the Franks. He gave battle to Duke Eudes (of Aquitaine) beyond the Garonne and the Dordogne, and put him to flight---so utterly [was he beaten] that God alone knew the number of the slain and wounded. Whereupon Abderrahman set in pursuit of Eudes; he destroyed palaces, burned churches, and imagined he could pillage the basilica of St. Martin of Tours>>

I'm guessing, that this little effort by the Muslims in Spain had a tiny bit to do with the desire of the Christian lands to send a message or send em 'packing' from the Holy Land, because of the possibility of another 'Tours' ..which of course did happen with the expansion of the Ottomans and the Muslim Seige of Vienna in 1689ish... (2nd Muslim Crusade ?)

I can hear all the Greens and Democrats at the court of the Frankish kings.. "NOO.. don't be racist and intolerant..and bigoted.. the Muslims will NEVER seek to expand their power further...."

I guess thats also why the Dems and Greens and much of Labor are irrelevant today.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 3 November 2005 1:29:00 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
Looking at the whole sorry picture of the Middle East since WW1, as political philosophers say, it has been a case of Western intrusion and injustice mainly for hegemon, and contraband in the shape of oil.

It is well to remember that Iran was virtually occupied by Western interests not long after WW2, the puppet Shah set up and thrown out later by Shia fundamentalists.

Of course, the main cause of today's discontent, is not only the Islamic historical dislike of the Jews or Israelis which can be discounted not only back in the Late Middle Ages, especially regarding ecumenical-style Moorish schools in Spain, but also in more recent times.

But as we also know with many of today's Western nations refusing to admit it, that the real bugbear is little Israel's arsenal of nuclear rockets, which if the present problem with Iran reaches crisis point, either Israeli fighter bombers or nuclear rockets might set off a flare-up which might prolifigate, with Russia, India and China maybe having something to say, which if done peacefully using true Realpolitik as Bismarck would agree, it might help to create
some sort of balance of power.

Finally, if America removed that nuclear capacity from Israel, which we know she is quite capable of, it is believed Iran would immediately calm down, with the world all the better for it.

George C, WA - Bushbred
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 3 November 2005 1:47:17 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
Well Said,

But has not this attitude been simmering in Iran for some time?

The Grand plan of whoever is pulling Bushes strings is to push into Iran eventually after Iraq anyway, is this not more than a propoganda excercise to appropriate poor sentiment for Iran, before we hear more about their weapons capabilities and their evil plans?

I find it so predictable.

There is a staged plan to embed the west in the middle east and clean out those in certain countries with power who are un co operative for many strategic regions, and whilst i support the plan if we were in danger, we are not and have not been.

How meany weapons were in Iraq...yet this was the core reason to invade. This is the next reason is all.

Call it 'restructuring' if you like, but for Bush and the boys, short term pain in exchange for long term benefits. It needs to be done now otherwise it will only get harder for them, day by day. And it is easier to move into Iran from next door.

A changing of the guard is in order in my opinion in some of the middle east, but not based on lies and deciet, which is what Bush feels they need to do to get the support form the wood duck masses.
Posted by Realist, Thursday, 3 November 2005 2:02:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George:

1. Although there is oil in the middle east, there is no oil in Israel.

2. If Israel gave up its nuclear arsenal, the next day it would cease to exist: many Arab states, including Egypt that signed a peace treaty with Israel, are just waiting for that moment to finish Israel off.

3. Israel's nuclear weapons are no threat to any peaceful nation. They are only intended as the very last resort doomsday weapon and were not used even in the wars when Israel was attacked.

4. America is not capable of removing Israel's nuclear capacity, because Israel knows that without that capacity it is gone and have nothing further to lose.

5. This is only rhetoric: if Israel was indeed destroyed, it would be against Iran's interests because Iran's regime would find no further excuse to exist and face greater conflicts within the Moslem world.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 3 November 2005 2:14:31 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
Realist and Yuanyutsu,

What I have said has aleady been said by political philosophers. Remember it is the US who can call the tune in the Middle East, which means that Israeli's nuclear capacity is part of America's strategic capacity in the Middle East. When Israel took out Saddam's part erected nuclear plant in the early 1980s it was said to be under American orders.

Also it has already been published in the media how Israel is geared up to take out any Iranian installations even if only rumoured to be nuclear, including using deep penetration missiles as Israel is already testing.

You are right Realist, concerning American intentions, as it has been all part of the New World Order and the Plan for the 21st Century.

This is why we need a strong United Nations so very much which, and possibly its own nuclear capabilities also, as Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher would have agreed to following his suggested plan around 1800, for a World Federation of Nations to preserve Perpetual Peace.

But a United Nations as was mooted during the Korean WAR with its own nuclear arsenal to police the globe does not fit in with US plans, and certainly not into the plans of the gang running the White House right now.
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 3 November 2005 5:29:33 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,

You claim that "Israel's nuclear capacity is part of America's strategic capacity in the Middle East".

However, Israel's nuclear capacity was developed in the 1950's and 1960's - long before it was allied with the U.S.A. In fact, in that period, Israel was rather allied with the U.S.S.R and later with France: its warm romance with the Americans came much later.

Israel makes its own security decisions independently, regardless of its current allies. It does not receive orders from anyone. If Israel feels that there is a real nuclear threat against it from Iran, it will surely act to counter it as it previously did in Iraq in 1981 - long before the gulf war and the ensuing American intervention. The fact that America may also benefit from it is incidental.

Here is a document about the American helplessness in the matter: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/documents/reveal
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 3 November 2005 5:54:10 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
"Threw back the frankish hordes?" HA!

Looks like Irfan Yusaf got his education in a Western hating madrass where some barely literate Imam never tired of blaming the West for all of the self inflicted woes that Islam is now suffering under.

Ever since Muhammad said "Fight the unbelievers who are near to you." The Muslim world has done just that. Muslim armies invaded the Christian kingdoms in North Africa and invaded Christian Spain. They got to France before the Frogs managed to stop them and drive them back over the Pyrenees into the Iberian peninsular.

Muslim armies twice got to the Gates of Vienna before turning back to deal with Persian armies stabbing the Ottomans in the back. Had the Perians not given the Ottomans so much trouble, all of Europe might now be Muslim and it would be just as big a basket case as the rest of Islam is today.

Hey Irfan, tell ya what. Your mob can have Jerusalem if the Muslims give back to Christianity the Constantinople that was stolen from Christendom by Muslims. If your mob won't give it back, then spare me the feigned self righteous posturing.

Instead of pretending that the Crusaders did you Muslims any injustice, why don't you just admit that the Crusades were primarily concerned with returning stolen Christian land from the Muslim hordes? Had the Crusaders succeeded, there would now be a lot more sucessful societies in the world instead of strife plagued Muslim cesspits which are unable to manufacure anything other than suicide bombers.
Posted by redneck, Thursday, 3 November 2005 6:41:11 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
Irfan,

Good article. I guess he could have followed the 'live and let live' example of Egypt, Turkey and others who would like to 'see Palestine on the map' rather than line he chose to adopt.

Redneck,

Religion is in the heart, once the 'kingdom' have borders, institutions and powers it becomes all about greed and control. If you studied the history of the Christian Kingdom in North Africa you would know God have nothing to do with it.
Posted by Fellow_Human, Thursday, 3 November 2005 8:20:33 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
It's difficult to know what Yusuf is actually trying to say here. Is he saying that the muslim world should try and destroy the israeli army in a more direct fashion, in the process achieving the liberation of Jerusalem while at the same time avoiding civilian casualties as would have the "great Saladdin". Or is he saying that the Muslim world should recognise Israel and the two work out their differences with creative diplomacy, thus avoiding war and also living up to the ideal provided by Saladdin? Or perhaps he is advocating that the majority sunni's destroy the minority shia's for aiding and abetting the destruction of the entire muslim communiuty by pissing off the yanks? Probably not the latter, but who knows?

Anyway, as for the musings about Israel and its nuclear arsenal. Im inclined to agree with Yuyutsu and disagree completely with Bushbred. Although Israel having nukes no doubt annoys the Muslim countries surrounding it, to say that if you took them away, Iran would calm down shows a naiviety of the highest order (along with the suggestion that we arm the UN with Nukes). They'd mobilise the tanks and be on the road within hours. Israel bombed Osiraq because it didnt want to get involved in a game of nuclear brinkmanship with Iraq in the near future. Israel will bomb Iran for the same reasons. Although this time, They might have to bomb a fair bit more than just the reactor because Iran owns a few ballistic missiles.
Posted by weapon, Thursday, 3 November 2005 9:01:42 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
Report from Israel -
IRAN
The world has witnessed parades in Iran where they've shown off their new missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons to Israel or even Europe but written on the sides of the missiles are slogans that say “for the destruction of Israel”. I don’t think you have to be a Politician to see we are in trouble here in Israel.

Since Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon the Iranian backed Hizbullah has been building up missiles bases and now have a reported 13,000 missiles ready to be fired at Israel whenever Iran decides it’s time, many with chemical warheads. All this of course has been designed to come together at the precise time to destroy Israel. Iran and Syria have agreed that if either is attacked by the US or Israel the other would come to their rescue.

SYRIA

To add insult to injury Syria has just purchased the Iskander SS-26 missiles from Russia with a 400 km range, putting two thirds of Israel in range, these missiles are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and are very accurate. For the past couple years Syria who has no real love for the “Palestinians” has been training thousands of them out of the Lebanon refugee camps too fight Israel. It has been reported that they have recently moved a very large number of them to their southern borders making even the Lebanon army nervous.

Bashar Assad (President of Syria) and Mahmoud Abbas (President of a place that doesn’t even exist on any map) both are in serious trouble with their own people. And when these Arab leaders find themselves in trouble they always react by starting a war, it is a mentality flaw but one that seems to keep them in power. As usual the Saudis are paying the bill for any Arab terrorist group who will wage war with Israel. Abbas has brought truck loads of highly sophisticated weapons into Gaza through the open border with Egypt in preparations for the big war with Israel, thanks to Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush and their Disengagement.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 3 November 2005 10:12:58 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
Interesting article. However, it misses the point. A nuclear armed Iran is a greater threat to the Arab world than it is to Israel. The Iranians know that retaliation by Israel will leave Iranian cities as radioactive smouldering ruins. Therefore, the pronouncement to destroy Israel is rhetoric. However, a nuclear armed Iran will lead to resurgent Persian Shiite imperialism against the Arab world and a scramble by Arab regimes to develop nuclear weapons themselves. Iran is desperate to get the Americans out of the Middle East in order to establish their own hegemony. The Arabs need Israel and the US as a counterbalance against Iran (that's why countries like Kuwait and the Gulf States are starting to cosy up to Israel).
Posted by Ari Ben Canaan, Thursday, 3 November 2005 11:29:54 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
Don't Muslim's ever consider how lucky they are to have Israel as an enemy? Why press their luck trying to destroy that country?

Don't Arab nations see what would happen if Iran does what it says it wants to do? Why have only 4 of them condemned this hateful, racist talk from Iran? Of course the Palestinians condemn the remarks. They would be toast also, because of their proximity to Israel - not that it matters to Iran. Most Muslim countries (except Jordan) care very little for them (Palestinians) anyway. Look how they treat them! They are but pawns in the war against the Jews.

The fact is that if the Jews are ever attached with nuclear weapons, it will be the end of Israel. It will only take about a dozen warheads to kill most of the people. Before Muslims start celebrating the thought, remember two things:
1. Dome of the Rock (Qubbat Al-Sakhra)
2. Massada

Obvious the Dome would be obliterated, but most Muslims would probably except that as a necessary evil. There is also the "massada" mentality, however, with a little semetic enhancement that says "I die, you die with me" (like the old joke of the scorpion and frog).

If Iran gets its wish, all major Muslims capitals within 1500 miles will become toast. Tens, maybe hundreds of millions will die.

Muslims doing their Hajj to Mecca will feel really silly looking at pile of burnt ashes where the Kaaba once stood, but the feeling will pass quickly as they perish from radioactive fallout.

Could happen! A lot of people in the whole world would say "Good riddance to both!"

Or there is the Book of Revelation scenario, where the Jews get so exasperated they finally disarm and trust Europe and the Beast (Anti-Christ) to protect them. DB can fill in the details on that one. Anyway, another bad idea in my opinion.

Very interesting stuff, all of this! Will I live to see how it ends, if ever?

Kactuzkid
Posted by kactuz, Friday, 4 November 2005 2:13:19 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
The greatest threat posed by an Iran with nuclear weapons will be to the remenants of the sunni in Iraq. Post-reconstruction Iraq will in all probability be partitioned, with the majority shia taking the major oil producing areas. This will inevitably lead to war with both the minority kurds, and also with the dispossesed, formerly powerful sunni's.

The new states solution to the kurdish problem is likely to resemble the solutions used to date by the Turks, Iraqis and Iran. The difficulties of repeating this solution for the benefit of the sunni population will be exacerbated by the fact that both Saudi Arabia and the UAE will intervene. This will inevitably provoke western intervention, and for some considerable time Iran will be far to pre-occupied with western air strikes (ala Kuwait / Desert Storm) to pay significant attention to Israel. If by some miraculous freak, Iran does survive, and maintain control of a nuclear arsenal, I suggest Russia will probably intervene, if only to remove the potential spectre of nuclear equipped chechen terrorists.

I do not believe that any of this will overburden Israel.

alakhem shalom,

Aaron
Posted by Aaron, Friday, 4 November 2005 2:28:01 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
C'mon Redneck they did patent an electronic prayer mat a couple of years back!

All the muslims I've ever worked with hate Israel and blame it, along with the US for absolutely everything wrong on the planet.

It's deeply ingrained and only a catyclasmic event would change it.
Posted by CARNIFEX, Friday, 4 November 2005 6:17:06 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
The difference between you Boaz (and your underlings) and the Greens, Democrats? Well the D and G's have moved into the twenty-first century. They seem to see that violence and hatred is a foolish way of conducting ourselves.

I sense a bit of primal yearning in you Boaz - or is it just that at heart you believe that the taking of human life is justified in the name of your religion - your culture? Me thinks you stir too much, are overly concerned for the "defence" argument to be you main motivaton. If you are Viet vet, perhaps it is an unconscious response to your treatment and experiences. Perhaps it is the inner conflict between the acceptance of the Kind Teachings and the reality of warfare. I'd be trying to shift a little more towards the Teachings there old mate. Your macho egoism is fairly transparent too.

I do not share the idea that might is right - that forcefulness is sign of strength. Bellicose attitude is a cultural aspect that must be seen as counter productive to human well being and dispute resolution.

Jimmy Little once advised: "Don't mistake kindness and niceness for weakness." I pass that onto you Boaz (and your team). Be nice.
Posted by rancitas, Friday, 4 November 2005 9:40:31 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IF Israel was deleted, blasted off the map, would the muslim countries live happily ever after? Or would they just resume fighting each other and blaming everyone but themselves for the backward countries they live in?
Until they can get their collective heads out of "the book'" they will never come to terms with modern life or find a path to a creative,peaceful existence.
Those who have such a hold over them will fight to retain that hold and refuse to let their 'faithful' know a better way of living.
Posted by mickijo, Friday, 4 November 2005 3:32:53 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
Sorry about the delay, Yuyutsu, but still thought it necessary to argue about your statement that the Israelis were not backed by America much before the Israeli destruction of Saddam’s part completed nuclear construction in 1981. The Americans had been backing the Israelis ever since the first Arab attack on Israel in the early 1970s, as well as the later Yom Kippur War both being successful not only through Israeli combat skills but also by the use of American supplied equipment. Henry Kissinger was also involved playing his usual two-timer game conning the Arabs as well as his Jews and Americans.

While on the job, regarding democracy, it is interesting how the latest copy of the Guardian newspaper, in talking about the lead-up to the global conference in Argentina to which Bush has virtually a small regiment of military protectors lined up, the Guardian gets a bit cynical in saying how democracy has flowered so much in South America since the US has left it alone, whereas previously it suffered with a rash of right-wing dictators like Pinochet, the CIA throwing out socialist left-wingers like Allende.

Maybe our Column needs a Posting explaining where our democracies really came from, whether right or left? Could be enlightening to set up a challenge, Yuyutsu, with no drawing of swords ? Personally though, mate, with going on 85, surely . getting a bit old for it. What about some of our younger ones getting into it. Instead of sniping at one another it might be a good idea to have some personal suggestions about making it a better world. They call it idealism, though not for oneself - something better than following some right or left wing diatribe which could make this world so unliveable for all our great great grandkids? .

Regards,

GeorgeC, WA - Bushbred
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 5 November 2005 1:02:36 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
Thought to share a view on the topic as I lived as an Egyptian Arab Muslim:

Iran nukes: Agree with AriBenCanaan, Shiite power through history was proven to be deadly to other Muslims and not Jewish or others. It is likely to be a stunt to gain support in the Arab and Muslim world (Palestine is always a cause of sympathy used by other dictators).

Israel: Jews always lived happily and safely in Muslim countries until the partition of Palestine by the UN and British flag. Using the “Old will die and the young will forget” slogan, the use of military might was the only tool to expand the borders until taking control of Jerusalem from Arab Muslims and Christians. The ‘land for peace’ was always followed by a conflicting ‘land for settlers’ policy which always discredited their ‘peace intentions’.

While Zionism helped Israel establish itself as a country, it is important to focus on rebuilding relations with its neighboring countries. Israel’s major credibility challenge is in two areas:
- Define its borders (legal rather than the biblical ones).
- Show some gratitude to the Palestinians and help them build their economy. After all, it is the very same land and people that sheltered them from the Nazis.

Carniflex, RedNeck,

Even though Muslim world is at its weakest point, there were 8 Nobel prize winners (4 for Peace, 2 Chemistry and 2 Literature). Be grateful that there were no Patent laws when hospitals, construction and even toilets were invented (by the Egyptians), otherwise you will be paying a ‘latrine license’ every time you wee.

An average student there is likely to have studied world history, geography and likely other religions. BTW, "Luca Paciolli" is not a pizza and we, Muslims don't eat our young either. Go get an Atlas..

Kaktuz & BD,

The book of revelations is the virtue of the naïve and the vicious.
‘everything is written’ so lets continue persecuting Palestinians anyway cause oneday someone will apear in a busy square in Tel Aviv with a WMD!
Are you guys for real?
Posted by Fellow_Human, Saturday, 5 November 2005 1:33:46 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
Rancitas....

'primal yearning' ? :) I had to smile when I read that mate.

In a way ur probably correct. The thing is, I can only do it by proxy.
I rejoice in the fact of the victories of Charles Martell at Tours and Count Strobiowski in Vienna, as I recoil in horror at the thought of an "Islamic world" which otherwise would have resulted.

Don't mistake my 'bark' for 'bite'. I'm no 'runt' but I have never had any liking for combat.

As for the Greens and Dems having moved into the 20th Century.. err I don't think that was meant as an insult..but maybe it was :) bless you. I disagree that the 20th Century means what the Greens and Dems stand for. Unless naivity is the prime qualification.

My favorite naivity is 'conflict resolution through peaceful means'

Much as I applaude the sentiment, it just plain does not work. It fails to acknowledge human nature, greed, lust for power, megalomania and even sex drive.
I recall with great sadness the account of a Roman Catholic missionary who told an American or Canadian tribe to follow the Sermon on the mount to the letter.. "Do good to those who persecute you" and when their traditional enemies came.. thats what they did, and for their trouble, they were annihalated.

The values expressed by Christ are a wonderful ideal, and do 'work' in some amazing ways depending on the circumstances and motivations involved.

So, I guess the Dems and Greens have in fact 'caught up' with Jesus by suggesting peaceful conflict resolution, but Christ also recognized that the day would come when:

"Brother will deliver up brother, and children their parents"

The problem with the idea of peaceful conflict resolution is that you cannot cannonize it and apply it to all situations. I think Paul had the most practical idea

"As far as it depends on you, live at peace with all men"

Anyway, thanx for the reminder of my own fallability :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 5 November 2005 2:59:05 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,
thank you for correcting me that the Americans supported Israel as early as the 1970's rather than "much later" as I stated.

Yet it does not change the fact that Israel's nuclear weapons (and the means to launch them) were already in place in the early 1960's - with some help from France and despite the Americans.

While one may have many reasons to be upset and angry at America, it should also be understood that Israel is an independent nation, that does what it deems best for itself and its survival rather than towing the American line.

Fellow_Human,
while your criticism of the Jewish settlements is correct, it is an irrelevant diversion from the subject at hand: nuclear weapons.

Also, why should the Israelis "show gratitude" to those Palestinians that while you claim to have "sheltered them from the Nazis", actually cooperated with the Nazis and massacred Jews under their leader, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al Husseini who was an ally of Hitler (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html)?
The only reason those Palestinians did not slaughter ALL the Jews of Israel, was that they were unable to because the Jews defended themselves.

About Israel taking control of Jerusalem, etc., may I remind you that it was not its intention to expand, but in 1967 it was attacked from 3 sides (Egypt, Syria and Jordan). Israel took those territories in self defence - and will happily, despite the settler-minority, return them once it is safe to do so.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 6 November 2005 1:02:58 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
Yuyutsu,

First I know little about the mufti you referred to but if the article is true then it is non-Islamic and non-human, I think it is safe to assume that Egyptians/Arabs (Muslims and Christians) will share my view.

Few comments on your posting though:

- ‘self defense’ always comes with a ‘within your borders’ obligation. Israel is and has been capable of defending itself for a long while. ‘Take land for peace’ (followed by settlers) initiated the vicious circle of fear that Israel is planning the “Euphrates to the Nile” refer to www.jewsforjudaism.com.

- The issue of taking control of Jerusalem widened the conflict from Arab neighbours to all Muslims and Christians (pope shenouda of Egypt issued a creed in 1977 instructing Christian copts to boycott Israel after Sadat initiated the peace treaty). Why would Israel widen / escalate the conflict if peace and co-existence was in their intentions?

- Israel today is at its peak of power and Arabs/ Muslims are at their bottom, are Israelis feeling safer though? Majority of Egyptians supported Sadat ‘ vision for a great middle eastern market and economy (Israelites entrepreneurs and Ishmaelites markets as he referred to it). There are no Israeli voices supporting peace, all we know is your spending on Nuclear weapons and military long range capabilities.

- From the day it started, those who understand the region knew that the Iraq war can only lead to "Iranian control of Iraq" which in turn, brings Iranian danger closer to Israel, Egypt, etc..now, why would Israel support the war in Iraq?
Posted by Fellow_Human, Sunday, 6 November 2005 11:28:44 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
France has been very liberal with their nuclear technological help in the Middle-East, Yuanyutsu, ever since she was banned from going nuclear, and de-Gualle encouraged his scientists to go it alone and it did prove successful, much to America's frustration. France also offered to help Iran go nuclear as well as Israel if you remember. Maybe France did believe a balance of nuclear power between the Arabs and the Jews was better than allowing one side to hold the ace card. Russia could now be possibly holding a similar view with her nuclear technological assistance to Iran.

Also about the US takeover of Iraq, there was also a rumour that the Israelis would benefit by the replacing of an old British pipeline from Iraq's southern oilfields to Haifa. With so many ex-Israelis and Zionists with attachments to the White House, you can bet your life the whole Middle East plot has been well worked out to be beneficial for Israel.

Regards, Bushbred.
Posted by bushbred, Sunday, 6 November 2005 1:17:47 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
Fellow_human:

I am unable to speak for the Jewish settlers or argue with their fanatic religious convictions. They are however a minority (albeit a loud one) and are far from representing the general views in Israel. Even the typical Likud voters (Sharon's mainstream-right party) are not interested in territories per-se, but vote out of despearation, believing that peace is impossible and those territories are therefore tactically a necessary evil as security buffers (though it does not justify the presence of civilian settlements!). With every suicide-bomber and missile, more Israelis despair from peace and turn to the right, but during interludes of relative calm, they gradually shift to the peace camp.

You are correct that Israelis do not feel safe - would you feel safe if bombs could explode at any time in your bus, train, cafe, market, supermarket, school, etc.? would you feel safe if a country that has nuclear weapons (say North Korea) was threatening to annihilate Australia?

The Jews of Israel were provoked time and again for no reason: what was the cause for the pogrom (massacre) against the Jews of Hebron in 1929? what provoked those shouts of "Itbah Al Yahud"? why was the state of Israel attacked from the moment it was created in 1948 despite the fact that the Jews peacefully accepted the U.N resolution to grant them only a very small portion of the land? why was Israel attacked again in 1967 and 1973?

- the only explanation is blind hatred combined with the belief that there was an opportunity to finish off the Jews.

Nuclear weapons are no obstacle to peace because they will never be used against anyone with peaceful intentions.

(Also Bushbred,) The only reason that Israel supported the war on Iraq is that they wanted the Scud missiles to be moved out of their range (never mind that there were no missiles left - Israel could not know that): this mission of searching and clearing the western desert, was in fact carried out by our Australian troops! all other benefits and drawbacks are incidental.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 6 November 2005 2:16:59 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
Good post, Mr Fellow Human. I concede that the Muslim world was the most advanced people in the world 700 odd years ago. And I admit that they have bequeathed to the entire human race such scientific inventions as incubators, vaccination, the jib sail, and, most importantly, scientific experimentation. But something went wrong with Islam. Your faith became so chauvinistic and so convinced of it’s own innate superiority that it simply assumed that there was nothing to learn from any infidels. It became so inward looking and isolationist, that it must have been a great shock for your people to suddenly realise that they were hundreds of years behind the West in just about everything.

But here was something which the Muslims did do right. Even though Islam is riven with factionalism, it was never as riven as the Christian world. So it did not suffer anywhere near as much from religious wars as the Christian world did. Our history was most definitely written in blood. But Europeans got sick and tired of the different Christian faiths using the State’s capacity for oppression and tyranny to promote each faiths interest. And that was why Protestant people in particular embraced the concept of the separation of church and State. This important principle has become the foundation of Western individual rights, which was the driving force of Western invention, commerce, science, and prosperity.

The Islamic world has yet to attain a Reformation in it’s religious thinking, and until it does, it will remain locked in a medieval time warp unable to progress and being left further and further behind by those countries who are not encumbered with the idea that things only happen if they are “Inshallah.”

Unless you boys get your act together, I predict that the entire Muslim world will one day revert back to a Somalia / Mad Max like existence, where wild eyed crazies with Kalashnikovs make AID agencies pay through the nose so that the AID donators can try to stop the Muslims populations from starving to death.
Posted by redneck, Sunday, 6 November 2005 7:07:06 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 Ari ben and Philo in Israel.

The when the Israeli Air Force bombed Iraq's Ossirak nuclear reactor, it did more for nuclear disarmament in five minutes, then all of the UN resolutions passed in the last fifty years.

Well done. I presume you have some maps of Iran?
Posted by redneck, Sunday, 6 November 2005 7:11:38 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
Good post Irfan, though whether you have read Saladin and the Crusaders aright I'm not sure - I am about to embark on “The Oxford History of the Crusades” by Jonathan Riley-Smith and might then be in a better position to assess your comments.

I think Iran and its President have a very real problem as I believe their oil is due to run out in about 15 years or so. So what? Well, I believe Iran has a per capita GDP of just $7,000 and depends on oil exports for the state subsidies that keep its population fed and clothed.

Recently Mr Ahmedinejad said he intended reducing 66,000 Iranian villages down to 10,000, relocating 30 million Iranians out of 70 millions, dwarfing in relative terms anything else done in modern history, including Stalin's collectivization campaign of the late 1920s.

Iran is about to become an even more desperate and unpredictable player on the world scene, raising even more questions about Muslim nations ability to provide a secure prosperous well ordered society for all of their citizens, not to mention for those harassed persecuted non Muslims eking out a precarious existence in their midst. Stirring up hatred against Israel is merely a sideshow to divert attention from a far more serious problem, the very survival of a nation.
Posted by David Palmer, Sunday, 6 November 2005 7:53:07 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,

one more point that I could not fit in 350 words earlier:

France did not help Arabs going nuclear, because although Iranians are Moslems, Iran is not an Arab country (in fact, calling them "Arab" would deeply insult them). Further, Iran of that time was under the Shah: a western country and one of Israel's best allies (the real reason why Iran today hates Israel so much is because they were the Shah's closest friends and helped build his milirary force).

As for the Russians today, they are simply broke and desperate for any possible revenue.

About that pipeline - Israel would indeed benefit from it - and so would the Iranians who hold 50% of the shares in that pipe, and so will Europe who would get cheaper petrol, but the ideas that wars (that cost so much more) are started on such prospects is ridiculous and far-fetched. The truth is that the Iraq war started as a matter of honour, due to Junior Bush's family obligation to complete what his father, Senior Bush failed to complete in 1990.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 7 November 2005 1:32:19 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
Sorry about carelessly calling Iranians Arabs, Yuanyutsu, when we know they are Persians superior to the Arabs. Anyhow, regarding France helping Iran with uranium enrichment. It has been on with France and Germany, and even Britain for a long time now, but lessenned through a ban apparently partly through the UN. However, on October 21, 2003, according to Google Online, France and Germany agreed to awaken the deal somwhat, but under immediate protest again, naturally.

In that Google article there is also mention about regime change needed in Iran as well as Iraq, which is so worrying if there is an attempt to carry it out sometime in the future, especially if it is all part of the American Project for the 21st Century, and the New World Order, even planned well before George W' took office.

One wonders whether since the end of the Cold War with unipolarity now rather than bi-polarity, we have inherited a far crazier world, Yuanyutsu? Maybe Online Opinion columns like ours could make some better suggestions for the future - even if only for our great-great grandkids?
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 8 November 2005 2:00:35 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
Redneck

What went wrong with Islam? Islam appears to be a dysfunctional religion for a number of reasons. From the beginning the Muslim religion's identity has hung on, among other things, holy war and jihad, and a stream of forced converts. There is no provision for peace. Had Mohammed and his descendants succeeded in forcibly converting the whole world to Islam, Islam at that point would have self-desructed. Mohammedism failed.

Semantics holds the key to understanding Islam.

Religion to the west or Christendom means churchy stuff, to the Muslim it means Law. Most Muslim concepts are not understood by the west.

Inherent in the Muslim Law is the need to impose the Muslim Law on everybody. Once under the Muslim Law the Law imposes the death penalty on a person who converts to another religion as well on the person who does the converting.

Asoma Bin Lardin is trying to reform or resurrect Mohammed's dream, but Asoma is lawless by any Law and is therefore a criminal.

The Iranian Primeminister's statement was an act of terrorism and therefore incompatable with logic and reason. It could have also have contained instructions to other terrorists.

Regards
Posted by GoldBrick, Tuesday, 8 November 2005 9:20:30 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
Yuyutsu,

According to Ben Gorion diaries the 1948 war was a setup by Israeli forces to drag the Egyptians into a 'fast and surprising war'.

Anyway, you justified some positions and avoided three simple questions that nobody seems to be willing to answer:

1- What do you believe should be the Israeli borders? Are they 'fixed' or 'dynamic'?
2- Do you support a Palestinian state?
3- Do you support the 'land, homes for settlers' and 'tents for Palestinians' that has been going on for the last 50 years? If so, are you seriously asking why these people 'hate you'?

And please don't use the 'elephat fears the mosquitos, so he takes their land for peace' argument. Israel is the third strongest army today (excluding its Nuclear capabilities) and can handle European armies combines if they need to.
Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 8 November 2005 10:08:26 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
"Fellow Human" ’s and some others’ posts testify to my already expressed in Internet forums opinion, that Iranian president should be awarded for speaking out what only those who WANT to be deaf pretend not knowing:

<The Jews of Israel were provoked time and again for no reason: what was the cause for the pogrom (massacre) against the Jews of Hebron in 1929? what provoked those shouts of "Itbah Al Yahud"? why was the state of Israel attacked from the moment it was created in 1948 despite the fact that the Jews peacefully accepted the U.N resolution to grant them only a very small portion of the land? why was Israel attacked again in 1967 and 1973?
- the only explanation is blind hatred combined with the belief
that there was an opportunity to finish off the Jews.>
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 6 November 2005 2:16:59 PM

And not much different attitudes are demonstrated towards local Jews in Australia on terms of “mainstream activities” and employment opportunities.

So, at least this could hardly sustain pre-anti-terror-legislation hysteria spread by particular politicians
Posted by MichaelK., Tuesday, 8 November 2005 10:39:10 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
Fellow_Human, I have no problem answering your questions:

Firstly, Ben Gurion was far from being my favourite hero: he was the head of a socialist party and his ideology and methods were akin to the Bolshevik Soviets. Whatever hideous tactics he had in his mind, unknown to the public in his time, I cannot tell since he kept those thoughts private. Even if this was true, it takes two for Tango, so there is still the question why Egypt took the bait, wished to fight to destroy Israel and remained involved in this war that was anything but "fast".

To your questions:

1. The borders of Israel should be the 1949-1967 borders (as agreed between Israel and and Arab states in Rodos, 1949 - despite the Arabs having not once violated that agreement). Israel must withdraw to those borders once it is proven safe to do so, and until such time, Israel should withdraw from any parts of the occupied territories that are not required for strictly security reasons and should not allow Israeli civilians to enter the rest.

2. I accept a Palestinian state if that's what Palestinians want - but I suspect that most of them will regret it.

3. Just a small fussy and insubstantial correction: the settlers have only been around since 1975-1976, eg. 29 years - not 50. The years 1967-1976, and even a bit after until those settlers gained momentum and started provoking the Arab population (which BTW rarely used the term "Palestinian" until then), have been the best ever for Palestinians: they were far happier and prosperous under pre-settler Israel than previously under Jordan and Egypt and afterwards under Arafat. So my answer is clearly a no: I do not support those policies you mentioned.

As to your "elephant" argument: Israel will only be secure when its last child be safe from bombs and rockets on her school bus or kindergarten class.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 8 November 2005 11:18:39 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
Yuyutzu,

I can sincerely tell you that if Israel 'clearly communicated' foregin policy is in line with what you are saying, i don't think any Egyptian / Arab or Muslim will have a problem with that.

You will find the 'street' version in these countries is different to your opinion. Neither Jews, Arabs or Egyptians are or want to be warriors but they were merchants and builders of great civilisations.

All the best to you,

MichaelK,

Not sure I understand your response, but there is a lot of underlying questions that needs to be a) asked and b) clearly communicated. This is for the very safetly of Israelis, Arabs, Egyptians and the whole planet pretty much.

We are living in times whre prejudice is the norm and everyone assumes they know what the others think and will or will not do.

It is for the safety of everyone to run as much as possible of open dialogues and communicate for a better world.

Since I left Egypt I had a lot of good Jewish loyal friends and contacts (I knew my father had a lot of jewish friends in the 40s and 50s). The picture we were fed in the Middle East is different in (on both the Israeli and Arab sides) is different.

We need to learn about and from each other without the paranoia
Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 8 November 2005 12:15:09 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
It is funny to hear of “the very safetly of Israelis, Arabs, Egyptians and the whole planet pretty much” as it sounded, to me at least, that Israelis blown up buses in Alexandria, Baghdad or Paris.

Annihilating the Jews under a cover of “anti-Zionist anti-Israel struggle” is a very goal of all these peaceful folks.

And this is not the end, if even hypothetically occurred
Posted by MichaelK., Wednesday, 9 November 2005 11:58:29 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
After watching those people yesterday bashing the cameraman, i am absolutely disgusted by what i have seen.

We are simmering here on the same religous riots as overseas. Watching those guys attack people like that makes me so angry as an Australian, as a reasonalbe person and as a former (until yesterday) advocate for muslim integration into Australia.

Imagine if it were ten guys who were able to defend themselves. Cowards. There will be holy war alright, and this will now continue until such time as people like yesterday meet their match, and have the wrong people in Australia scorned and out to get them.

Unfortunately, just like America in someways what underpins both the ability to counter an invasion in Australia, and the existing social fabric is the fundamental white Anglo Saxon male with his own version of extremism. Revenge is a far more destructive motive than Jihad in my opinion, especialy when it gets to a certain scale. I just hope that the innnocent people are not tarnished because of the Voilent, Anti Social, Anti Australian, Gun Carrying, Gang Raping, small section of troublemakers that create the stigmas.

Trust me, sheer numbers mean these type of Muslims will be weeded out, but lets hope not the expense of the rest of the Muslim population.
Posted by Realist, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:15:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Disgust at hooligans bashing people making their leaving with submitting news to TV stations is a normal attitude of a normal person.

And what about people who do not employ these bashers –and a variety of many others- only because of them not being from Celtic-Anglo background with UK-links?

Your p r a c t i c a l attitude towards institutional racism in Austalia would change much as well, probably.
Posted by MichaelK., Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:23:56 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
Watching those men bash up the channel 7 camerman made me so angry too- but so did the fact that two muslim women recently shopping in chatswood were completly ignored while looking for clothes. Not only were they completely ignored, but the other sales assisstants were so obviously rude to these women and however insignificant an incident like this may seem- im sure it is not so insignificant when you are on the receiving end. Watching the way my fellow Australians read the Daily Telegraph "HOLY WAR ON AUSTRALIA" headlines and to then see how this somehow interacts and impacts on the way they go about their daily lives makes me sick to my stomach and very sad- We are painting all Muslims/ Arabs/ Persians with the same brush here.
Posted by amyh, Friday, 11 November 2005 4:15:41 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
You name one race, religion or group who is not persecuted by others.

We all are, what about the Aboriginal who is victimised because shopkeepers assume he was up to no good? Or the white guy who can only get so far in a friendship with another culture (eg. Taiwanese) who are skeptical/suspicious of white people?

We can talk about instances all day, but winging will not do anything to change it. If it is so hard to integrate into a mild counrty such as Australia, it will be even harder to integrate elsewhere.

Roll with the punches, and i bet you will come out defiant and on top. If Nelson Mandela can do it, on a very small scale each of us can in this far more sympathetic environment.
Posted by Realist, Monday, 14 November 2005 11:36:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regrettably, millenniums pass by and nothing much happens at global scale between Muslims and Jews.
Posted by MichaelK., Monday, 14 November 2005 1:31:04 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. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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