The Forum > Article Comments > Iran's infantile attitude to Israel > Comments
Iran's infantile attitude to Israel : Comments
By Irfan Yusuf, published 3/11/2005Irfan Yusuf argues Muslim nations should not follow the Iranian formula in their dealings with Israel.
- Pages:
- ‹
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- ›
- All
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 5 November 2005 2:59:05 PM
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
|
'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 :)