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 > What the Iranian president's rant was really about > Comments

What the Iranian president's rant was really about : Comments

By Leanne Piggott, published 4/11/2005

Leanne Piggott argues the Iranian president's recent speech was about the wider battle with the West.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
The problem in the conflict between Israel and neighbouring Muslim states is a deep mistrust and unwillingness for unconditional forgiveness, borne out of religious ideology and war. The zionist Jews believe Israel is the land God has given their forefathers for which they are legally entitled. Muslims see it as an invasion of Muslim land and believe that God has warned against them having Jewish (and Christian) friends who are deemed an unjust people (Qur'an 5.051). Can there ever be reconciliation given the mindset of these peoples? Unless there is a fundamental shift in the hearts and minds of both the Jews and Muslims in this conflict how can there ever be reconciliation? Perhaps if they accepted the words of Jesus to "love your enemies" and "pray for those who persecute you" (Mat. 5:44) they could be reconciled. But who amongst them would accept Jesus' authority? Jews reject that he was the Messiah and Muslims view Muhammed a greater prophet. Loving and praying for your enemy is counter cultural to the ways of both religions, but unless there can be a change in the religious culture there can be no lasting peace.
Posted by Crusader, Friday, 4 November 2005 3:44:34 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 might we have concern regarding Iran's attitude to neighbourliness.
But how up-tight should the article's author be about Iran's disregard for article 2(4) of the UN charter, which was quoted as "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state"?
Iran's apparent disregard for it is worth some worry, but how can we expect that country to do the right thing and respect article 2(4) in the face of the history of UN Security Council members' contempt for it when it concerns their own actions?
Can we just brush off such matters as the US invasion of the little island of Grenada, of Panama and the kidnapping of its head of state, of the US's less than savoury activites against the national integrity of Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile?
Can we dismiss the USSR's 1956 invasion of Hungary, and of checkoslovokia some years later, etc.?
Might it have been an action in contempt of article 2(4) for Britain and France to mount a military expedition against Egypt in 1956?
Well, that is for starters. All those actions were initiated by members of the Security Council.
Then there is the little matter of Dr. Mossadeq, the elected head of Iran in 1953 when Britain and the US gave him his marching orders.
What should we expect of Iran in the face of this history of hypocricy?
We might follow on from there about nuclear non-proliferation. What Charlie actually believes that nuclear power can ever be totally divorced from military matters? We do have cause for worry. But what respect for non-proliferation from nuclear-emergent countries can we expect when those already possessing nuclear armaments steadfastly refuse to set an example by decommissioning them?
Does Leanne Piggott really suggest that "we" are pure, and Iran is not? It seems to me that the whole shebang of this mess is populated by lunatics.
Posted by colinsett, Friday, 4 November 2005 9:16:15 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
Palestine is central to this problem.

Iran is ambitious for nuclear power.

Could one reason for this be the possession of a large nuclear arsenal by Isreal?

Successful negotiations are more likely between parties of equal power.

Is Israel likely to trade off a viable Palestinian State for better relations with the Arab world?

Until it does the rhetoric coming from Iran will continue unabated.
Posted by Stan1, Friday, 4 November 2005 11:12:47 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
Do we really think the United Nations will take any action to defuse and disarm the situation? Or will they be espousing nothing more than retoric? I have to agree with Crusader, until there is a major attitude change in the basis of their beliefs there is no possible hope of settlement and reconciliation.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 5 November 2005 8:57:49 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
'attitude change' is the initiative of the more powerful side.
Unfortunately Israel started and continued to pursue its borders expansion through military action rather than negotiations.

"the land for peace" concept was always followed by 'the land for settlers' which did not show any good intentions towards arab neighbours.

Israel need to focus for the next 3 decades on fixing its relations with its neighbours. 'The old will die and the young will forget' slogan by its founders may have served Israel in the past but likely to cause damage in the future.
Posted by Fellow_Human, Saturday, 5 November 2005 12:59:27 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
Its not so much Iran which illustrates one of my favorite 'mantra's' but Palestine, and the lessons we see there are instructive about how Iran will also behave.

Its not the silent majority who drive agenda's its the radical few.

We have now seen incontrovertable evidence of what I, among others have long been claiming, that there will never be a political solution between the radical Islamists among the Palestinians and the right wing Orthodox Jews. (to point to the extreme ends of the spectrum)

Iran will also show that it is the 'whacko loud mouthed and well armed mob' who call the shots.

A Persian is a Persian is a Persian.. and they have much history of Empire to fondly look back on, and a sizable slice of military humiliation which I'm sure they would like to see balanced up with a bit of resurgent Persian/Islamic(Shia) empire building.

As for them acquiring Nukes.. and their public "peaceful purposes" posture, I just laugh... "Takiya" is what is going on here.

Say the convenient thing for the bigger goal of victory. Does anyone seriously think Iran has no thoughts about uniting the Shia of Iraq with them ? Seems very likely they could do it unless the "Great Satan" prevents them.

Just imagine.. a nuclear armed Iran.. wouldnt that be Armageddonish fun.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 5 November 2005 8:51:54 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
In answer to Fellow_Human, Israel has peace treaties with Egpt and Jordan as a result of those countries deciding to pursue negotiations rather than warfare. Israel has just disengaged from the Gaza Strip, despite the unwillingness of the PA to negotiate and despite the genocidal charter of Hamas. The fact is that the Arab world has aggressively attacked Israel by military means for decades and has only ever made gains as a result of pursuing peaceful negotiations.
Posted by Ari Ben Canaan, Saturday, 5 November 2005 9:55:51 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
Crusader, Stan1 and Fellow_Human:

No doubt that the concept of 'Land for settlers' was lately on the rise in israel (at least until the recent evacuation of the Jewish settlements of the Gaza strip), but it did not happen in a vacuum, but as direct result of the Palestinians not willing to have peace and sending suicide bombers into the cities of Israel.

Israel's former prime minister, Ehud Barak, offered the Palestinians almost everything they could dream about: almost all Jewish settlements would be dismantled, they could get a state on 98% of their land, including large parts of East Jerusalem and the holy Moslem places, alternative lands instead of the remaining 2%, generous American financial aid, allowing a limited number of refugees - those with humanitarian causes, to live in Israel and financial compensation for the rest, who could then settle in the Palstinian state. When this agreement was almost achieved, Yasser Arafat literally turned his back and instructed his convoy of cars to drive away from that peace conference.

This proved that the Palestinians are not interested in peace or the well-being of their own people - what they want at all costs, just like Iran, is to end the Jewish entity of Israel and throw the Jews (as stated not once) into the mediterranean sea. They do not even care about having their own independent state: if this is what they wanted, they could have it long ago (in fact, they could even get their state first, then break their peace agreements and attack Israel again from better positions).

As a result, Barak's Labour government collapsed and was replaced by Sharon who supported the settlers.

The settlers do not enjoy a majority in Israel - most Israelis hate them and will happily rid themselves of the occupied territories, especially if they felt that it was safe to do so, but those who believe that Israel must do whatsoever is needed to survive, do and will continue enjoying the absolute majority in Israel.

It is now the Palestinian's turn to demonstrate whether and when their basic attitudes changed.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 5 November 2005 10:42:59 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
Israel should, if attacked ever again from Gaza, turn off the water. the problem will be gone in a week
Posted by Aaron, Sunday, 6 November 2005 2:09:31 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
This is an excellent article with a timely warning.

This issue is not really about Israel, Palestine or the history of the Middle East. Its about the destruction of the West. Anyone who can't see this when it has been stated so clearly by our enemies is a fool.

The "we're not perfect either" or "look what a Westerner did in the past" lobbies are pathetic sympathisers with our enemies who wish for the destruction of their own community as a "punishment" for imagined or reinterpreted wrongdoings of the past. They are so without insight that they don't envisage that this entails their own destruction.

They will call for "diplomacy" when Tehran is mounting a nuclear attack and attempt to lead us to passivity in the face of imminent destruction.

Tehran is inviting destruction. I can envisage the newscasts showing the bodies of their dead children and blaming the US yet again in order to recruit more Western sympathy.

The sooner anti-terror laws weed out Left wing anti-west sympathisers in our own community the safer we will all be.

With less proactive leadership in the West,the worst could well happen.

The Bob Browns and Kim Beasleys of this world would kill us all with their passivity or dilly-dallying in the face of a crisis.
Posted by Atman, Sunday, 6 November 2005 12:19:35 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
In response to Leanne Piggot's article and those who responded.

I agree with Leanne in as far as she went, but she barely scratched the surface. All seem to have no knowledge of Islam or Muslim concepts.

I am not taking the Muslims side, but warning those on the other side that their ignorance of Islam and Muslimism could prove to be the Muslim's great weapon of atomic magnitude.

What I think I know!

Most Muslims are not fundamentalist, most fundamentalist are not terrorists. Most terrorists seem to break the Muslim Law in every thing they do. Suicide is about the worst crime a Muslim can do.

Both Muslims and Christians both use the word 'religion'. The same word means very different things to each. To the Muslim, religion means Law, and when 'religion' is traced to its route it does mean Law.

If a Muslim converts to another religion the Muslim Law demands the death penalty, both for the converted and the converter.

History shows that Muslims have tolerated Christians in their domain as second class citizens. As they expand their domain by holy-war and jihad, their aim is to convert their new citizens to Islam.

Holy-war and jihad are fundamental to Muslim Law and to ask them to abandon these would be to ask them to abandon Mohammed. Remember, the words holy-war and jihad means something very different to them than what they mean to us (semantical problem).

If you are curious about how I know what I think I know, it is because I have just read a book by BERNARD LEWIS

THE CRISIS OF ISLAM __ HOLY WAR AND UNHOLY TERROR

B LEWIS has written a number of books including:

ISLAM and the WEST.

BERNARD LEWIS'S BOOKS should be mandatory reading for every body in the west.
Posted by GoldBrick, Sunday, 6 November 2005 7:29:53 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
Leanne's article seems to me to be a straightforward series of observations about an international issue, unsullied by opinion or conjecture. Even her conclusion, that there is more to this than pure Israel-bashing, is carefully phrased and moderate in tone.

How come this appears as an online opinion? Where are the wild accusations and hairy-chested claims? Where is the muslim-bashing, the holy-war armageddon-very-cross accusations?

Instead we have an unemotional and straightforward piece of reporting, which a couple of decades ago would be applauded for its sober presentation of fact. No wonder all the responses are limp-wristed rehashes of personal prejudice - there's nothing to get the hackles a-rising and the blood a-boiling.

Thanks Leanne, a valuable and timely reminder.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 7 November 2005 4:19:21 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
So it is ok for Israel and America to spout their nuclear capabilities, but as soon as Iran does.... Of course the Iranian government and President would be making such claims to the Iranian people. These people have seen the very worst of the West and to feel that they are now in some sort of position of power, would be very popular with many Iranians. If we could see the connections and similarities between how our "corageous PM" and government talks as compared to how Middle Eastern government's are also talking, we would see how religious power, fear and a feeling of moral superiority do not belong in politics of any shape or form. Fear is easy to promote, hope and safety are not.
Posted by amyh, Tuesday, 8 November 2005 10:09:45 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
Jee wiz Pericles, Just speaks your mind.
To the Moslems, no matter what happened, even if Israel was removed by force, the Middle East problem would only escalate and probably spread faster. But as Most Moslems remember , Israel is a Professional defence force. Pericles will back me on that .
F H assumption of Israel expanding it’s borders is almost typical of the propaganda of the Arab States, someone forgot the seven day war hay, well naughty ,naughty. And if the Egyptian President did not lie, Syria and Jordan would not have entered the war, and it would have been shorter, the war that is.
It would be in fact Saudi Arabia on the border Expansion of 1400 years ago and swallowed up everything, Including Iran.
Mad Mullahs with nuclear weapons, please spare us, and answer that question by your self. Israel is not the only target.
Posted by All-, Tuesday, 8 November 2005 5:47:53 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
Recently there seem to be so many 'Muslim experts' coming out from the wood work. How was it all of a sudden, after a couple of articles and books, people feel free to explain the rules, laws and regulations of the Quran. Like all other holy books, the Quran was written throusands of years ago, with that popluation and time in mind. Many see taking the words of the bible completely literally simply ridiculous- same with the Quran. What all these holy books do preach is peace and forgivness, this is something all of us and our world leaders should take more notice of.
Posted by amyh, Tuesday, 8 November 2005 6:51:43 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
AMYH
you seem to miss an important point.

BIBLE
The bible... taken literally, is legitimate at times, not legitimate at times.
Clear Examples "Idiomatic ways of expression"

1/ "If you eye causes you to sin, GOUGE it out, for it is better you enter heaven with one eye than enter hell with 2 eyes"

This is an example of Jesus using a particular method of conveying a message, and must be interpreted as "Sin is abhorrent to God, avoid it at all costs or suffer the consequences"

2/ Literal "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand" absolutely 100% literal !

QURAN
On the other hand, the Quran is (we are told) Gods eternal book given to mohammed for mankind. It is meant not for 'that' time, but for all time, according to its proponents.

What many fail to understand, is that it was given to a culture, which to a large degree has not changed even to now, and why ? because it also established (along with the 'Sunna') the guidelines for the Islamic State. It gives the rules on how to pick your nose almost (well.. ok.. an exaggeration, it tells how to do up your shoes or something..perhaps thats the hadith)

BOTTOM LINE it was not meant to be 'culturally relative' the culture into which it was given, and which emerged with Mohammed is HOW IT IS MEANT TO BE for all time.

So, when it makes a list of statements about 'The Believers' Sura 23
it is categorical and not subject to cultural relativity, it ESTABLISHES the culture.

[23:0] In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

[23:1] Successful indeed are the believers;

[23:2] who are reverent during their Contact Prayers (Salat).

[23:3] And they avoid vain talk.

[23:4] And they give their obligatory charity (Zakat).

[23:5] And they maintain their chastity.

[23:6] Only with their spouses, or those who are rightfully theirs, do they have sexual relations; they are not to be blamed

"right"fully theirs ..... ? God, wants men to have slave girls for sex ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 6:34:04 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
Thanks amyh. I too have been quite astounded by the level of expertise in Quranic interpretation displayed by those who oppose Islam and/or Muslims on religious and/or cultural grounds. However, the above barrage indicates that at least one of the most verbose Quranic 'experts' misses your point completely.

To those of us who not bound by the intellectual straitjackets of religion or xenophobia, the literal interpretation of the Quran is every bit as silly and fanciful as is the literal interpretation of the Bible. Indeed, while they are both fine collections of ancient myths, they have no greater epistemological or ontological status than does the Bhagavad-Gita or the Golden Bough.

But I suspect that point will also be lost on the Muslim-bashers in these forums.
Posted by mahatma duck, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 7:22:27 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
-All,

'Victims of propaganda' are those who revert to clichets when faced with a logical argument. An average Egyptian or Arab (Muslim or Christian) will have two simple questions:

- Regardless of the ‘who did what to who’, wars and sovereinty are separate issues and self defense wars does not justify bypassing your borders and adding more territory to it. Britain did not replace London with Berlin because it was defending itself. Land grabbing have no precedent in modern days and I would probably see it as a security hazard to the Israelis and not a safety measure.

- Israel always claimed to grab land for peace negotiations, yet the land will always be given to settlers. One would wonder why you would burn what you claim to be your only negotiation card.

Boaz David(s)

Didn’t I just explain 23:6 at least twice on the 'the cultural bogeyman”? Honestly, how many of you are using the PC? Is there Boaz Juniors under training on Islam bashing?

On the humour side, I couldn’t help thinking of you last night while watching the Simpsons episode featuring Ned Flanders dying and when he saw the light he said: “Buddha? Damn I chose the wrong religion!”

(Although Ned had no grudge with Buddhism).

Adios,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 10:40:36 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
Fellow_Human:

Unlike Egypt, where the president can do almost whatever he wants, Israel is a true democracy, incoporating a vast variety of views (the idiom states: "2 Jews - 3 opinions"). It is an error to view Israel as a monolithic entity with a fixed, definite and predictable plan.

While Israel is highly united about maintaining and defending its existance, it is very divided about its internal goals within that existance.

In the vast majority of cases, land in the "wild west" was not "given" to settlers: the settlers grabbed the land themselves, and weak governments had to accept it retroactively. At times, the government attempted to evacuate the settlers - but failed (at times it succeeded!). At other times there were ministers who backed and supported the settlers in secret without informing the rest of the government and against its policies.

In the present situation, even if the government of Israel decided to evacuate the settlements, and as much as the majority of Israeli citizens want, it could not because it will bring about a bloody civil war.

The key to the situation is security: with every terrorist attack, the Israeli public shifts to the right - believing that peace is impossible and therefore more support the settlers, but during interludes of relative calm, the Israeli public shifts towards the peace camp.
With a long enough period of calm, without bombs, suicide attacks and rockets, the milder Israelis will increase and find the strength to remove the settlements.

The Arab world can change the situation (or can they control their own extremists?) by stopping terror attacks on Israel. My advice is that they should do it sooner rather than later, as time does not favour the peace camp because the settlers' birth-rate is significantly higher than the average in Israel.

Cynically, I would not be surprised even if some Jewish and Moslem extremists coordinate their activities, since they have a common goal to preserve the violent situation.

About border protection - you must agree that topological factors in Israel are much differnet than England that is surrounded by sea.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 11:53:59 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,

I think you just explained to me how the ‘never ending’ vicious circle is coming from and going to. Neither democracy nor dictatorship can help on the scenario you just described. I guess the issue with point 1 (Land grabbing under self defence banner) is the one that I am struggling with. ‘the 2 wrongs make it right” approach.

Logically if you defend yourself without land grabbing (and you are capable of doing so) you could at least say there was a good chance that even hardliners would have accepted the partition of Palestine by now.

If London called Berlin the British capital, likely to have Germans blowing themselves up (Paris under the Nazis is a typical example). Anyway, seems you guys see long term wisdom in your actions which I can’t understand.
Posted by Fellow_Human, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:45:52 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
What is particularly scandalous about Iran in this day and age is that they can hold such a revolting annual celebration like the offensive "Jerusalem Day" at all.

Why is their entitlement to membership of the UN not examined immediately?

Similarly, it is astonishing that no non-Iranian crowds gather in the world to protest about the poisonous Iranian leader's recent call to genocide in line with his national day of xenophobia. It is not of course at all surprising why Iranians themselves don't, even though so many of them are so much better educated and more enlightened than their recently elected leader.

No, these smart crowds only gather to protest against the United States because they know they can and come to little harm except ridicule ... whereas say anything about the radical and xenophobic tea-pots we all know and love and wow, well...lets face it, we won't be borrowing any innovative views on free speech from Islam this millennium, now will we?

Its time for regime change but from inside Iran itself. More power to the people of Iran.
Posted by Ro, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 1:09:10 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
Fellow_Human,

It depends what you call "land grabbing": I already clarified that using the enemy's land for anything but defence is not proper - but I do argue that it is legitimate to cross the border when necessary for one's defence - well England did it to Germany!

Jerusalem - the western part, is the capital of Israel: it is within the 1949 borders, so there should be no dispute. Until 1967, despite the agreed border and cease-fire, Jordanian soldiers used to shoot at random, whenever they felt like, from the walls of the old city on Israeli civilians walking about their business in the western part.

Would you not do the same as Israel did to eventually take over the old city?
Would you then give it away to a bunch of people that hate you even more than the Jordanians did and who demonstrate time and again that when it comes to harming civilans, they have no inhibitions? if you allowed them to have their way, pretty soon yourself and your family would not be safe even in Australia and even if you are a moderate Moslem.

Australia is not interested in conquering lands from Indonesia, but some Islamic groups in Malaysia and Indonesia call for the creation of an Islamic state in this region, to include northern Australia [to begin with]. Had your military experts told you that the only way to prevent this was to grab some strategic Indonesian islands (this is of course not the case: Australia's strategy instead, is to pay the cost of allying ourselves with the U.S.A, so that they protect us), would you not go for it?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 2:13:08 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
Ro,
Yep, the change will come from inside Iran. I have had some communications with people within its borders via the net. Many of the youth and a large portion of the not so young are on the verge, What you see on TV is typical staged exhibitions, much like everywhere else in the Mid East, “See Here how it is done” http://www.seconddraft.org/, aided by western Left Journalists and Broadcasters.Raw footage of what is, and see what is reported.
Iran is quite unique, and many still have and are finding ties to its Historical significance, Islam is worn on the outside of most there, but you will not see that through the smoke screen of the radicals.
Posted by All-, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 2:55:32 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
Yuyutsu,

You mixed up few topics in your comment buy my view is simple:

- When you grab another sovereign country’s land, you create a ‘land under occupation’ status with its legal and social dilemma.

- When the land for peace becomes land for settlers, it rules out any future any future hope in peaceful settlement: if any of the neighbouring countries had a change of heart or government and are to recognise Israel in return of their land: which borders does it need to recognise and what would have happened to their land by then?

- Taking control of Palestinian Jerusalem was not within a format of mutual arrangement similar to the British Chinese deal over HongKong for example. Put simply, you have given neither value nor time limit in return of your control of their land. You left future generations with either ‘large legal compensation bill’ or much worse depending on how much hardliners (on both Jewish and arab) side will be influencing the agenda.

- As for your example, here is the Palestinian version: Australia is part of British flag. An Indonesian dictator persecutes the Chinese population living in Indonesia and Britain decides to relocate them to Australia, changing the population ratio from 5% of 30% of Australians within 30 years. Will an average Australian accept the partition of Australia and the creation of a Chinese mini-state? Anyway, maybe it was the only solution at the time, but if you are genuine about peace, you need to reach out and work with your neignbours and specially the Palestinians. Your pullout of Gazza already changed a lot of hearts in Egypt and in the Arab world.

- Last on fundamentalism in Islam: it is a bit of the bogeyman, 2 months ago I was in Egypt during the first democratic elections ever and the right wing Islamists didn’t get 2% of the votes. Most Muslims are not naïve as might think and actually Islamist were grilled on TV by normal Muslims to come up with democratic reform plans and effective management of the economy
Posted by Fellow_Human, Thursday, 10 November 2005 1:00:21 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:

The legal situation is clear: the Geneva convention allows countries to occupy territories of other countries during war - especially during a war of defence, without any time limit. What the convention does not allow, is the settlement of civilians in such territories.

The social situation was also very clear until the settlers came: Palestinians received the best possible treatment by Israel: no other occupied enemy residents were treated so generously in history. They were prosperous than ever, they had freedom of movement within both territories and Israel itself, and over the bridges to Jordan; the refugees were allowed for the first time to leave their camps; they could invite their familes over from the Arab countires; they were free to work in Israel and had a flourishing tourist industry consisting of both Israelis and tourists from around the globe; there were no road-blocks and Israel's military presence in Arab cities and villages was sparse, because it was not required. Palestinian policemen were employed and paid by Israel to keep law and order in their streets.

The only Arab country still having land-claims against Israel is Syria. Very few Arab countries today still do not recognize Israel - most do, even while criticizing its borders - which many Israelis do too!!

Regarding Indonesia - the scenario you presented is very different than mine: those Islamist extremists in Malaysia and Indonesia are not calling for a Chinese state in Australia - but for us becoming part of a Moslem one (P.S. it was many years ago since Australia was under British flag).

About fundamentalist Islam: we all hope that your prediction, based on the Egyptian experience, is correct. Yet we in Australia cannot afford to remain complacent.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 10 November 2005 2:28:37 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
Yuyutsu,

I guess you summarized were the agreement and where the conflict areas are:

As per your posting, an average Israeli believes Syria have a claim to the Golan Heights subject to peace and recognition but no rights to a Palestinian land or state except as an occupied territory because they are well treated. According to you, Palestinians have a choice of being treated well as Israeli Arabs or being thrown into tents, 40% unemployment and an average income of a dollar a day if they want to keep their Palestinian identity and want their land back.

I would probably say that an average Egyptian would say while partial Zionism benefited Israel establishment it will play against the peace prospects on the long term. I hope I understood what you are saying correctly but the idea of fully replacing Palestine with Israel is the least likely option to achieve any peace prospects.

-All,

I checked the website link and oh yes….It was me who was under the influence of propaganda! I lived in Egypt for 29 years of my life, spent weekends in Sinai and all Palestinians on the Egyptian borders are living in 5 stars hotels because they are bored of their water view properties, everything else is a lie don't let anyone fool you..
Posted by Fellow_Human, Thursday, 10 November 2005 7:59:11 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
Fellow_Human,

Don't worry: unlike the peaceful euphoric times following 1967, since the terrorist attacks began, most Israelis today prefer total separation from the Palestinians - with a long and high wall to protect them and make them forget about Palestinian existance.

Although only about 30% of Israelis believe that the Palestinians have a right for a state, most would consider it, right-or-no-right, as the most practical and beneficial solution for Israel itself.

Some Israelis are even playing with the idea of getting rid of 3 Arab towns (Umm Il Fahm, Bakah Al Garbiah, Taybeh) that were part of Israel since 1949, giving them away to the Palestinian state (but that would be a harsh move, since the residents of those towns are now Israeli citizens and are used to a western standard of living, which they will probably prefer over squeezing with their poor brothers). The ones who prefer a single state are the settlers (obviously, so that they can stay where they are) and many of the Palestinians themselves (away from the cameras for fear of life, they prefer living in a developed country rather than in a corrupt third-world one).

Most Israelis believe that Syria has a claim over the Golan Heights, but also that Syria could never be trusted until it becomes democratic: otherwise, they will use the topographic advantage to attack Israel again.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 10 November 2005 9:25:31 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
F H, I would agree in most instances the Palestinian Issue is perpetuated by Arab interference, there is ample footage of what is broadcasted there and what the youth are brainwashed with.
If Arafat had dispersed the financial generosity of worldly nations to the people instead of his own bank accounts, then just maybe the situation would be a little different for the Palestinian population and the people, mere fact the U N had issued a noble Peace prize is evidence enough of Pathological traits of that establishment.
We do not always see the good in people; Iraq is a great example of Media Bias and propaganda by our media, the never-ever reporting of the good things and massive progress of the Iraq people.
I could present a few hundred web links on raw footage, some of Arab Children as young as 3 dressed up in battle fatigues gun toting, “that footage is the least offensive”, in the western world is tantamount to Psychological pedophilia. That is what we are talking about. I do not doubt there are millions of other good thing that happen, and just as seriously bad, but the nature of the Tribalistic behavior spurred on by Political and religious zealots for their own ego and gain is where we see the innocent used as pawns. Israel is Democratic and accountable; Arabs and Islam seem to be above that, and unaccountable, Just excuses and blame others are what we see and hear and that is not the exception, in some political sections and the media, it is the rule. Even many Arab Victims of Islamic repression will never see the light of day, nor will anyone hear about it, unless an American or Jew placed a pair of Underpants on a Murderers head and shames him, you will hear about that. That is what concerns me and conserns you. It is not enough to pretend it never happens and everyone else is to blame.
Posted by All-, Friday, 11 November 2005 12:50:10 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
-All,

I totally agree that Palestinians have their own mismanagement, corruption, leadership and division. I still read the local news there however this is not the issue. Also, I agree that Israel is one of the better examples of democracy in the Middle East. It is its policy against another sovereign nation (ie Palestine) that I am trying to understand. When Japan attacked the US (for no reason whatsoever) the US after a long battle reconstructed the country into a free democracy and maintained its sovereignty.

Also, I am surprised at the Israeli intellects who are wondering why Palestinians were attacking Israel: Palestine was a British colony under occupation, because of the Nazis, the British relocated large numbers of Jews into Palestine then split the country into two!

In what logic would anyone expect the natives (who are trying to get rid of British colonialism anyway) to welcome the new comers?
My view was it would have been possible if the new comers added real value or enriched the locals life. As far as my discussion with Yuyutsu there was little done or done within the frame of identity trade (ie if you want to live well forget your Palestinian identity and become an Israeli Arab).

Yuyutsu,

I honestly think the fence is a good idea only if you guys thought of it in 1948.
Posted by Fellow_Human, Saturday, 12 November 2005 6:58:28 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 never previsouly heard such a strange argument equating the Jews with the British: is it so difficult to understand that Israel has its own independent agenda, unrelated to any power or empire?

Zionist Jews started to settle Israel first during the Ottoman rule - not the British.
Most of the first settlers were socialists if not communists, and were certainly disliked by both Turkey and Britain.

When the British came, they actually preferred to have only an Arab state on the whole of Palestine. Most British officials sided with the Arabs and even armed them. The Jews came DESPITE the British. The British government resisted Jewish immigration, but many Jews managed to sneak in anyway in small ships in dark nights past their coast-guard. Initially, those Jewish refugees that were not so fortunate and were caught by the British, were sent back to Euorpe, where they found their death by the Nazis. Later on, Britain sent the refugees they caught to detention camps in Cyprus.

The Jews sought independence so that they can bring in the rest of the refugees - the British were reluctant, but had to obey the 1947 U.N. decision. On that background there was bitterness and even violent clashes between Jews and British police.

The lands allocated in 1947 by the U.N. to become a Jewish state, were already owned by Jews who bought the land from Arabs for full (and often multiple) price. Many of those lands, when bought were Malaria-infested swamps unfit for human habitation, but the Jews worked hard and managed to dry those swamps. Perhaps the locals did not welcome the new comers - but they certainly welcomed their money!

Those Arabs who chose to live in peace with the Jews, had their lives enriched in many ways - and were never even required to give away their Arab identity (Palestinian identity became popular only much later as a reaction to the settlers' provocations).

It is indeed regrettable that the wall was not built in 1949. I guess the reason was lack of manpower, materials and technology.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 13 November 2005 12:41:37 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,

Your posting stated facts that I already know. History is compulsory at school and a favourite past time for Egyptians. I am aware that Israelis settlers paid for some parts of the land they control (anywhere from 6 to 15%).

Anyway I am not debating any of that, infact, I believe Arabs biggest mistake was not to accept the UN partition decision.

Back to my original question which you are either avoiding or have no answer to is why did you/ do you want to replace the total Palestinian state? Why Israel never accepted their borders within the ‘partition’ decision and defended it without that ‘alien land for peace/ settlers philosophy?
Posted by Fellow_Human, Monday, 14 November 2005 1:55:47 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 not sure that I understand your question:

Israel DID accept the U.N. partition plan - when the U.N partition resolution was announced, everyone in Israel danced in the streets for joy. True that the new state was very fragmented - but the Jews accepted and were happy with what they got, and had they not been attacked, these would have remained Israel's permanent borders.

So I beg you to please clarify your question.

BTW, 12.5% is the percentage of land in Israel - including Jordan, that was held directly by the Jewish National Fund (JNF). I will need to dig out how much more land was privately owned by Jews.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 14 November 2005 3:01:21 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
Yuyutsu,

Ok let me clarify my question with an example:

We, usually rely on history to interpret strategies and trends. The founders of Israel after the UN partition decision and in face of aggression had one of two strategies to follow:

- First: would defend the land they were given by the UN partition decision, since you are capable of defending yourselves, until eventually your opponent (that generation or the one that follows) will accept the UN and moves on.
- Second: (what actually happened) to respond to every aggression by taking more land from the Palestinian state and others, creating a wider and longer conflicts with ‘occupied territories’ drama.

I would imagine that the first strategy would have resolved the Arab Israeli conflict probably with the death of Nasser. But history shows that the second strategy had no chance for achieving peace.
I wonder what was the compelling argument to follow the second strategy ‘land for peace’ when it have no historical precedent for success.

Do you understand my question now?

In my personal view, the creation of the Arab Israeli conflict was a success of the British foreign policy. I would have though Egyptians and Arabs should have sued the Britts for gazillion of dollars (or pounds). Then again, I am always told the arguments I come up with are 'unprecedented' or 'unheared of'. Too much philosophy and lateral thinking can damage the brain :-)

All the best,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 15 November 2005 8:26:24 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:

Your assumption that the Jews of Palestine were invincible and capable of defending themselves from any position, is incorrect.

The situation in 1948 was desperate: most Jews believed that they are about to die, because 600,000 with so little arms and ammunition, have no chance to survive against well-equipped 45,000,000, including tanks and fighter-planes, which Israel did not have. Israel was fragmented, with small and large parts isolated under siege.

Israel's first priority was to open the roads for supplies to the isolated parts. The next priority was to prevent sections of Israel from being cut again, and the next one was to move gunfire away as possible from Israel's civilian population. Taking more land was a side-effect rather than a goal by itself.

Even when cease-fire was declared, the threat was not over. The Arab intentions to wipe out Israel and throw the Jews to the sea have not changed. Israel was happy to negotiate, give land for peace, and even return refugees (Israel deliberately kept their homes unoccupied for several years), but the other side was not willing to talk or even recognise Israel's existence.

The same happened in 1956 and 1967: Israel took lands in order to remove canon fire and the threat of a quick invasion, away from its borders. For many years, the occupied territories were kept with the intention of returning them in a peace agreement. The settlers came later to complicate matters, which is indeed a sad story.

Have you noticed the news yesterday? Israel's newly elected Labour leader, announced that he will push forward a law providing financial motivation for settlers to leave. Rather than spectacular televised confrontations, he would like to see a low-key, gradual decline in settler population. Whether Labour is elected to carry out this plan, or whether Likud is re-elected, largely depends on the amount of trust of Israelis in the ability of Arab leadership to stop terrorism.

If the heart of the conflict was land - it would have been resolved ages ago. The only real issues are ACCEPTANCE and TRUST.

Hope this answers your question!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 15 November 2005 10:17:22 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
Thanks Yuyutsu,

Probably would have done the same if I was in your shoes for the first few years but not 56 onwards when you were part of a British french alliance and later developed your own WMD capabilities.

I guess the point I was trying to make that 'land grabbing' can backfire (ie there was no reason for the 73 war if you didn't grab the egyptian Sinai in 67).

Anyway, trust and acceptance are a real challenge for the future, I guess the most important thing is for sides to agree on what is it that needs to be accepted. Before doing that, extermists and hard liners on both sides should be pushed out.

Wish to see it solved in our life time, Sinai is my favourite holiday and meditation place.

Thanks for the discussion, it was informative.
Posted by Fellow_Human, Friday, 18 November 2005 12:15:19 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
ISRAEL 24th Nov
Israel’s northern border has been under attack all day by Hizbullah Terrorists. There has been 14 IDF soldiers injured and several Hizbullah terrorist killed as they crossed the border on motorbikes and scooters with the intent to kidnap IDF soldiers or Israeli civilians. They were confronted by IDF soldiers in hand to hand combat. In order to give the Hizbullah raiders support they shelled Jewish towns in the northern border, Metula and Snier causing the residence to spend the day and this night in bomb shelters as Hizbullah shelled them with Katyusha rockets. They have now started shelling the town of Kiryat Shmona as well.

Israeli warplanes and IDF artillery are hitting back at the Hizbullah bases in southern Lebanon we don’t know what damage that raids on their bases have caused to the Hizbullah at this time.

It is now being reported that bands of Palestinian fighters who were trained in Syria out of the refugee camps from Lebanon are headed toward the border to join the fight and try to filtrate Israel.

It is known that President Assad of Syria is ordering Hizbullah to attack in order to get the UN and US pressure off of him, this is what we all have expected this wild crazy man to do. How far he will go with it remains to be seen, but it could very easily escalate into a full regional war if it gets much worse.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 25 November 2005 9:43:10 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
The Rev Fred Nile MLC said: he met a remarkable man at the annual prayer breakfast in the main hall of Federal Parliament, General Georges Sada, the National Security Advisor to the Iraqi Government. He was the guest speaker heard by over 600 guests. Including many Federal parliamentarians John Anderson, Peter Costello, Kevin Rudd, Harry Quick and Bruce Baird, as well as the Governor General.

General Sada was the Air Vice Marshall of the Iraqi Air Force given responsibility for fighter aircraft under Saddam Hussein. One story he told concerned orders he received from Saddam Hussein to equip 96 supersonic Russian built fighters with chemical bombs which would be dropped on the population centres of Israel.

He was given that order present before a number of defence officials but refused implement it. He persuaded Saddam Hussein that the Iraqis couldn't succeed in their mission because they would be "flying blind" while Israel had the "eyes". Meaning the Israelis had superior military equipment so could identify the aircraft before they reached their targets
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 3 December 2005 1:15:35 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
Continued:
Sada said that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Some of them were destroyed but a large number were shipped across the border into Syria, where they remain to this day.

He shared another story, of which I've had confirmation from a former American Air Force Colonel, David Eberly. In January 1991 Colonel Eberly and some other coalition pilots were shot down over Iraq and captured. They became prisoners of war. Saddam Hussein gave the order that all the pilots were to be executed, they were classified as criminals of war. Because Sada was head of an air force department he was put in charge of the prisoners of war. He received the order they were to be executed but disobeyed. As a consequence, Saddam Hussein threw him into prison, where he suffered greatly. The pilots whose lives were saved have expressed their appreciation for his bravery.

Sada was ordered to join Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party in 1986. He refused to do so and was thus forced to retire. I was amazed that a Christian could hold such a high position in the Iraqi regime. But his ability to fly aircraft and to organise the air force for Saddam Hussein made him invaluable.

Shortly after Sada was forced out of the air force Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and Sada was the first man he called back into service. He was restored to his former position and put in charge of the air force.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 3 December 2005 1:16:58 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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