This week marks the anniversary of the Six Day War when on June 5, 1967 Israel attacked Egypt, Jordan, and Syria and gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. Israel and Egypt eventually signed a land for peace deal in which Israel relinquished the Sinai Peninsula, but the remaining territories are still occupied by Israel to this day, despite many promises to return the land to its rightful owners.
According to the Fourth Geneva Convention governing occupation, it’s illegal for an occupying nation to allow any of its population to live in the captured territory. Israel has been thumbing its nose at this law for decades and currently almost half a million Israelis are living illegally in the territories belonging to Palestine and Syria.
The United States has turned a blind eye to Israel’s illegal activities for far too long, allowing Palestinian resentment to foment into acts of terrorism against innocent Israeli civilians, resulting in retaliatory strikes by the Israeli Defense Forces that cause widespread destruction and death to the Palestinian people.
President Obama seems ready to put an end to this untenable situation. He’s demanded that Israel stop building and expanding Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. “Part of being a good friend is being honest,” said Obama, “And I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory in the region, is profoundly negative not only for Israeli interests but also U.S. interests.”
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has defiantly refused this essential step toward achieving Middle East peace. It appears that Netanyahu cares more for obtaining land for Israel than he does for the welfare of the Israeli people. Many Israelis believe that ending the occupation and allowing a Palestinian state to be created will bring them peace and security.
Rarely do we get to hear that dissenting Israeli viewpoint here in America. This Friday June 5th, Gilad Atzmon, an Israeli Jew who is against the occupation will be speaking and playing his world renowned jazz at Steve’s Guitars in Carbondale. What an amazing coincidence that it happens to be the 42nd anniversary of the beginning of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Atzmon
Gilad Atzmon (Hebrew: גלעד עצמון, born June 9, 1963, Israel) is an Israeli-born British jazz musician, and is known as an author and activist who is critical of both Zionism and Judaism. His album Exile was BBC jazz album of the year in 2003, and he has been described as “one of London’s finest saxophonists”. Playing over 100 dates a year, he has been called “surely the hardest-gigging man in British jazz”. His albums, of which he has recorded nine to date, often explore political themes and the music of the Middle East. He has also written two novels, which have been translated into over 20 languages…
http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/01/03/gilad-atzmon-living-on-borrowed-time-in-a-stolen-land/
Gilad Atzmon – Living on Borrowed Time in a Stolen Land
January 3, 2009
Communicating with Israelis may leave one bewildered. Even now when the Israeli Air Force is practicing murder in broad daylight of hundreds of civilians, elderly persons, women and children, the Israeli people manage to convince themselves that they are the real victims in this violent saga…
“Hearing the talented Israeli sax player, Gilad Atzmon, for the first time should be sweet in our little, listening room,” says Steve of Steve’s Guitars.
All of the countries involved are ignorant, religious bigots. Anyone who stands beside any of these groups/ counties is contributing to the “ethnic cleaning” both sides attempt in the dark of the night. I enjoyed reading this Sue, but I see more war making then peace making.
For someone with such a rosy view of mankind’s ability to save itself from environmental catastrophe, you don’t seem too optimistic about our chances of eliminating injustice and war. I’ve got news for you, if we don’t eliminate war, we’ll eliminate ourselves, and the environment will cease to be threatened by our presence.
No offense Nathan, but I suspect by your comment that you are one of the millions of Americans who are ignorant of the facts concerning Israel’s brutal 42 year occupation of Palestine.
I do have the view that mankind has the ability to save itself, but I don’t think that is a “rosy” view. I am constantly advocating for education and not just the book kind. The middle-east/ world is pledged with religious ignorance. The land under dispute, isn’t under dispute because of it economic value. This desert land isn’t actually the land of milk and honey, but instead it is taught to be the HOLY LAND. As long as people learn religion from their fathers instead of their own hearts, this land will be under dispute. The land “rightfully” belongs to two different and hostel religious groups. If you take either side, you are wrong. As I said they’re not fighting for an economic treasure; they are fighting over traditional beliefs. You may feel like the land rightfully belongs to the Muslims because the Jews successfully occupied it. But if you feel that way you must feel guilty about living on the Indians land and are ready to give it up, right? The past is the past, and the important part is not the name of the land, but instead the policies of it. The Jews wants it to be a Jewish state and Muslims a Muslim state and they both are racist. We cater to one or both sides by promoting crap like a two state solution which is the same as our back of the bus solution. This is wrong and won’t solve anything. Why do we pick sides or try to be the mediator, when all the solution being presented are ethnically discriminating? Until they can learn what’s in their hearts and even in their religious text, they will be at war. America can not stop it and is only feeding it by involving itself in these racist solution. The only way to help is by promoting an accept each other solution, which has never been seriously presented. There is nothing far-fetched about this solution excepted that these religious nut-jobs need to actually think about their religious text, listen to rationale, and get over themselves. It was hard for the Catholic to except gravity too, but hey look at them. They are finally on the verge of accepting it since the Pope is just now reviewing the case. LOL. Sorry Sue, but this ignorant war is going to continue as long as the ignorance does.
As I suspected, you don’t really understand the nature of the conflict. You, like many others have bought into the lie that the conflict between Israel and the Arabs is a religious war that has been going on for thousands of years. Actually Muslims and Jews have never had any animosity toward each other and lived quite peacefully side by side in Palestine before Israel was created by the Zionists.
Zionism is a political movement cloaked in a religious one. They appeal to the religious zealots among the Jews in order to secure more land for Israel out of the area that was supposed to belong to Palestine.
The Muslims in the Middle East don’t hate Jews, they hate the occupation. They hate the stealing of their land. They hate the Jews coming in and declaring Israel a “Jewish State” even though millions of Muslims live there.
I would love to see a One-State solution and so would many Arabs, but that is never going to happen as long as the Zionists are in power. So the next best thing is the Two-State solution in which each side gets their own legitimate state, fully recognized and secure from attack by the other.
It’s very simple; all Israel has to do to gain peace and security is to withdraw their military and civilian occupation to the 1967 armistice lines. But the truth is, Israel doesn’t want peace, they want land, and they’ll stop at nothing, including genocide and ethnic cleansing, to get it.
Now the reason the U.S. needs to be involved is because we give millions in aid to Israel. We are in fact, the only ones who can force Israel to comply with the dozens of U.N. resolutions stating that they must withdraw their occupation and allow a Palestinian state to be created as was originally intended by the U.N. when Israel was created. By making our aid to Israel contingent upon their complying with the law, we can end this conflict once and for all.
“You may feel like the land rightfully belongs to the Muslims because the Jews successfully occupied it. But if you feel that way you must feel guilty about living on the Indians land and are ready to give it up, right? The past is the past, and the important part is not the name of the land, but instead the policies of it.”
The past is the past as far as America is concerned. There is no longer any conflict going on here. The past is not the past when it comes to Israel/Palestine. Israel is currently occupying Palestine and taking away people’s homes and land at an alarming rate. This is causing anger and resentment among the Arab population and some resort to terrorism against Israeli civilians. To end that terrorism and create a secure Israel, all that needs to happen is an end to the occupation and illegal settlement by Jews on the wrong side of the Green Line(1967 armistice).
I reiterate; religion is NOT the cause of the conflict. This is…
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mapstellstory.html
Yes, it is a political plan to take over that economic treasure. Although Israel is hospitable, it is barely. Little oil, less water, an not much else. “Israel the land of milk and honey.” But your right, they’re fighting over the land and not the religious significance behind it. The Zionist or racist Jews just want a random place to call home.
Don’t fool yourself, this is a religious war. If you want to try and tell me Palestine or racist Muslims want peace and Israel doesn’t, then please at least try and censor the truth about every Muslims states racist rule. The truth is that both want peace, but unfortunately they only want it on their own terms. You may hear Jews and Muslims say that they don’t want to eliminate the other, but that is not the case for those fighting this war.
The best solution is segregation? That should work, I’ve never seen any problems come out of that. I’m being a smart-ass, but give me a break. What is it that you think I don’t understand? Jews flooded the land with people. Then once they had enough people they start fighting for more land and even recruited Jews from around the world to join the fight. They gained power by mass immigrations and being backed by powerful allies. They even propagandized/ took advantage of the WWII. So is your point that because Zionist did/ do terrible things, it suddenly makes the Palestinians righteous. There is no good vs. evil in war. Nor can put a border or build a fence between hate. The United States should not back either side. And it isn’t our fault if they blow each other up. The best we can do is offer to mediate a “get over your-fucking-selves solution.” It’s sad to see people dieing at the hands of others, but if they refuse to get it when the blood flowing down their own streets, what more can we do?
If they loved a fraction of what they hate, this war would end today.
A Two-State solution is not segregation. It’s a matter of stating the boundaries of each territory. The U.S. and Mexico are not segregated because there’s a border between us. Iran and Iraq weren’t segregated. What is wrong with just stating the extent of your country’s borders? Why do you think Israel has never declared where its borders are?
Theoretically, Israel could just keep invading its neighbors and setting up military occupation throughout the region. Fortunately, they are only interested in the area from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, formerly known as Judea and Samaria. Unfortunately, that would entirely eliminate the possibility of a Palestinian state.
Jews, Arabs and Christians had peacefully shared the area known as Palestine for hundreds of years. It was only when the Zionists moved in and started enacting terrorism on the non-Jews that the conflict started. That doesn’t make the Palestinians righteous, it makes them victims. Like the Native Americans, the Palestinians are an indigenous population being evacuated from their land by greedy imperialists.
Because the conflict has been framed by the Zionist criminal perpetrators as one of innate hatred, anti-Semitism, and a desire to annihilate Israel, they’ve been able to get away with it for over sixty years. People like you and Michael Conniff have bought into the lies and your prejudice blinds you to the truth.
One thing I agree with, the U.S. shouldn’t be involved with either of them. I’d be perfectly happy if we didn’t give aid or council to either and just let them fight it out on their own. Without our backing, Israel would be a lot more vulnerable and probably more willing to negotiate a deal.
You’ve got to remember though, that with Israel as an ally, the U.S. gets a strategic nuclear arsenal in the Middle East. That is the real reason we don’t cut off their aid.
“If they loved a fraction of what they hate, this war would end today.”
Please don’t resort to trite meaningless sayings. it really doesn’t help your argument.
Sue,
[People like you and Michael Conniff have bought into the lies and your prejudice blinds you to the truth...]
Is that any way to foster Nathan’s continued contribution to this thoughtful exchange?
I was critical of Mike McGarry the other day for threatening to beat the crap out of people who thought his views racist. It’s not a far climb out of McGarry’s cesspool to declare a person incapable of seeing the truth, especially when a thoughtful examination of Middle East history–not of the entire history of the middle east, but just of the last century–is wholly sufficient to contradict the view that a Jewish State should be rendered extinct.
[Jews, Arabs and Christians had peacefully shared the area known as Palestine for hundreds of years.]
(Pregnant choice of nouns: “area” known as Palestine–a subject for another discussion…)
The way I see it, this is about as close as you get to truth. Seems to me the seminal question is why the Arab peninsula should now be considered the proper province of a single religion and lineage–a special exception to the concept of multiculturalism: “A color/race-blind society is certainly a manifestation of a self-actualized civilization, but multiculturalism does not apply here.”
Isn’t the Zionism you detest exactly what you’re embracing?
Cheers,
[It's not a far climb out of McGarry's cesspool to declare a person incapable of seeing the truth,]
There’s no shame in finding out that your views have been deliberately prejudiced by bad information. The shame is in refusing to recognize the truth once it’s put before you. And even worse is continuing to spread the lie even after you’ve discovered the truth.
Mitch, even though I consider you a friend, I never lose sight of the fact that you are the major promoter of the sinister Jew-hating Arab stereotype on Aspen Post, which is something I constantly strive to debunk.
Labeling the Middle East conflict in simplistic terms as stemming from religious hatred, renders moot the argument for a peace agreement. If the problem is that Israel is surrounded by people who hate Jews, then that’s never going to change and there is no point in talking about peace. If the problem is that Israel is stealing land and oppressing the Palestinians, then there is a solution that can lead to peace. It just happens to be the solution that all of the major world leaders and NGOs have been promoting for 42 years, the same one I’ve been promoting since 9/11.
[...especially when a thoughtful examination of Middle East history--not of the entire history of the middle east, but just of the last century--is wholly sufficient to contradict the view that a Jewish State should be rendered extinct.]
No one is saying the Jewish State should be rendered extinct. Not me, not Jordan, not Syria, not Egypt, not Saudi Arabia, not Iran, not Hamas, nobody. The issue is not the destruction of Israel, the issue is putting an end to the Zionist ambition to destroy the possibility of a Palestinian state.
[Isn't the Zionism you detest exactly what you're embracing?]
How so? I’ve said I would prefer a One-State solution where everyone is equal regardless of race or religion. As a strong proponent of multi-culturalism I disagree with the idea of any state being reserved for a single demographic, that includes Arab states. But Palestine won’t be a “Muslim” state. Many Christians, Jews and people of other religions live in Palestine and will remain after the withdrawal of the occupation.
I see three flagstones on this path, that are missing;
1) The Sephardim were driven out of Christendom by the inquisitors, and found a welcoming haven in the then very tolerant Muslim world. Jews were drive East (to become the Ashkenazy) and South, becoming the Sephardim.
2) The initial growth and influence of Wahabism with it’s paranoid prism of religious xenophobia and resultant increasing intolerance, emanating from Muslim culture, society and politics.
3) The arrival of Zionist/Racists descended from the Ashkenazy, who through intrigue, plots, murder, terrorism and aided by powerful Western European Allies by guilt, sought and gained through an imposed hostile takeover of the land upon which the modern state of Israel exists.
I believe this context to be important, because there is a societal/cultural clash fueling and fueled by, alternative edited revisionist religious interpretations.
[Jews were driven East (to become the Ashkenazy]
Wikifacts: “By conservative and orthodox philosophies, a person can only be considered a Jew if their mother was Jewish (meaning more specifically that they descend from a female down the matrilineal line who was assumed to be present at Mt. Sinai when the ten commandments were given or one of their female matrilineal ancestors underwent what is considered to be a valid conversion before the birth of her children), or they themselves have undergone conversion. This means that a person can be Ashkenazi but not considered a Jew by some of those within the Jewish communities, making the term “Ashkenazi” more applicable as broad ethnicity which evolved from the practice of Judaism in Europe.
Although in the 11th century they comprised only 3% of the world’s Jewish population, Ashkenazi Jews accounted for (at their highest) 92% of the world’s Jews in 1931 and today make up approximately 80% of Jews worldwide.”
The Ashkenazi were European converts to Judaism and thus have no ancestral claim to the land of Palestine. But since there are too few Semitic Jews, the task falls to the Ashkenazi to claim Israel as their biblical homeland. Meanwhile, the Semitic Muslims who have more ancestral ties to the land than 80% of the world’s Jews, are being treated like they’re the intruders. Ironic.
Sue,
I get what you are saying about the holocaust. Although we are not denying it in any way, shape, or form, I think we both see it as a distraction or even worse that it is used to further a non-relevant Jewish agenda. Whether six million or a hundred million Jews died in the holocaust, it is irrelevant when talking about Israel, but yet somehow people will push it into the conversation as if it proved some pro-Jewish point. I understand that people feel as though “holocaust deniers” are taking away from some inherited Jewish sympathy by questioning aspects of the holocaust, but what does it really matter? Killing is in everyone’s history and doesn’t justify anything. History is always recorded with the pen of bias and so calling some dumb or hateful for questioning it, is both dumb and hateful.
I understand and agree with your position in seeing Muslims as unfairly viewed, but in taking a complete opposite side you have become just as bias. It’s not a question of who is right when they both are wrong.
What would you consider a religious war? How is calling this war a religious one rendering it unsolvable? I have heard you once say that you promote a one state solution, but you told me that the best solution is a two state solution?
Nathan,
The actual Holocaust Revisionist movement started as an investigation into whether prominent Jews in German society were collaborating with Hitler and the Nazis, to instigate the Holocaust in order to gain worldwide support as a catalyst for creating the state of Israel as a “safe haven” for the Jews.
The real purpose of the original Holocaust Revisionists was to undermine the unquestioning support for Israel as a victim state in order to allow people to view the Israel/Palestine issue more fairly. As with all legitimate movements that threaten the status quo, its opponents want everyone to focus on the fringe extreme elements such as those who dispute the number of Jews killed or whether conditions in the concentration camps were all that bad. Characterizing the whole movement as “Holocaust denial,” renders it easy to dismiss by folks who don’t know any better.
[I understand and agree with your position in seeing Muslims as unfairly viewed, but in taking a complete opposite side you have become just as bias. It’s not a question of who is right when they both are wrong.]
I don’t take the complete opposite side. I see the Middle East conflict objectively, as a conflict between a powerful well-armed state against a powerless defenseless people. Just because the victim lashes out and retaliates, doesn’t mean they’re not still the victim. But I sympathize with both the Israeli people and the Palestinian people who are all vicitms of the Zionist agenda.
I’ve often said that the Palestinians are wrong for thinking violence against civilians is the solution. Violence against the settlers by the American Indian didn’t stop their land from being taken away, It only led to more suffering and loss by their people. Same with the Palestinians. The solution is economical and political. But in order for other countries, especially the U.S. to be strict with Israel and demand they comply with International Human Rights Law and the Geneva Convention, they have to stop seeing Israel as the weak defenseless victim beset by anti-Semitic enemies. And now we’re back to the Holocaust issue.
[What would you consider a religious war? How is calling this war a religious one rendering it unsolvable?]
A religious war is one in which the prime motivation is to replace one religion with another by force, such as the Christian crusades. That is not the case either for Israel or the Palestinians. True, Israel wants a Jewish state where Palestine now sits and those pesky Muslims are in the way, but theirs is more like the U.S. push westward, to increase the land wealth and territorial power at the expense of the indigenous population.
Meanwhile, the majority (with a few exceptions) of Muslims in the region aren’t against the Jewish religion being practiced in their midst. At least they never had any objection to it before 1947. So one can easily see that their objection is with Israel’s treatment of their fellow Muslims and the unfair taking of land that was designated for the Palestinian state, rather than the religion itself. In other words, Muslims don’t hate Jews because they’re Jews, Muslims hate Jews because of the thieving, oppressive Zionist regime that has been causing misery and loss for Palestinians since the inception of Israel.
Labeling the Middle East conflict a religious war renders it unsolvable because the only solutions are A. to eliminate the enemy; either the Muslims have to eliminate the Jews or visa versa, neither of which is ever going to happen or B. to eliminate the religious hatred that is ostensibly the cause of the conflict, and how do you get people to collectively change their minds?
If the rest of the world, particularly Americans think that the problem is that Muslims hate Jews, then they won’t ever look at or be able to see the real cause of the conflict, which is the occupation. You can see this clearly in statements made by Michael Conniff and his listeners. They obviously believe that the Palestinians just simply hate Jews and want to destroy Israel, instead of seeing the reality that the Palestinians just want to be secure and happy in their own state, and are willing to live side by side with Israel in peace.
[I have heard you once say that you promote a one state solution, but you told me that the best solution is a two state solution?]
Because Israel’s goal is to annex the West Bank to Israel, this means no Palestinian state can be created, but it also means that with the current population of Arabs to Jews in that area, the Jews would be outnumbered and outvoted in a democratic society, thus no Jewish state either.
If Israel wants to be a Jewish state, they have only two options;
1.eliminate the majority of Arabs in the West Bank and the possibility of there ever being a Palestinian state
2.withdraw the occupation, allow an Arab majority Palestinian state to be created alongside their Jewish majority state of Israel.
Israel has so far chosen option 1. That is why they’ve been building Jewish only cities and towns throughout the West Bank, then walling them off and creating Jewish only roads between the settlements and Israel proper. At the current rate of settlement growth, Israel is displacing ten thousand Palestinians a year from the West Bank. They figure if they can replace enough of the Arab population with a Jewish one, eventually they will have eliminated the threat of a Muslim majority undermining their Jewish supremacy.
If Israel wanted to annex the West Bank and integrate Jewish and Arab neighborhoods, schools, government, etc. in a democratic fashion with equal rights for Jews and Muslims, then a One-State solution would be possible. But because Israel is insistent on having a Jewish state with a Jewish majority in control, the best solution is the Two-State; they withdraw their military occupation and civilian settlements from the West Bank and allow the Palestinians to create their own state.
Sue-
[No one is saying the Jewish State should be rendered extinct.]
I too regard you as a friend–and as a thoughtful adversary in the pit of debate–but surely you cannot be this naïve. To wit:
“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”
~Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
“بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود” [een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad, or "The regime occupying Jerusalem shall be eliminated from the pages of history"]
~Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
“The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its price, and pay for it heavily.”
~Osama bin Laden, Letter to America
I could go on and on, but in short order I have shown your claim is baseless.
Cheers,
Come on Mitch, you know I wasn’t speaking of extremists, I was speaking of myself and Arab national leaders, as was clearly stated in my next sentence; “Not me, not Jordan, not Syria, not Egypt, not Saudi Arabia, not Iran, not Hamas, nobody.”
As I’ve shown time and again, Ahmedinijad didn’t call for the destruction of Israel. He was quoting Ayatollah Khomeini who was expressing a wish in the Islamic fashion that the Zionist regime in Israel would “vanish from the page of time.” A reference to a future time when the Muslim people would no longer be persecuted by Israel’s government, NOT a call to destroy the state of Israel.
All of the Arab nation’s leaders including Hamas have agreed to recognize Israel’s right to exist and to live in peace with the Jewish state as soon as Israel relinquishes the West Bank. Recognizing Israel before the end of the occupation and a Palestinian state is created would be giving up the biggest, maybe the only, bargaining chip the Arabs have, which is why recognition and acceptance is based on Israel complying with the peace agreements.
Using statements of radical Islamists to prove that Muslims or Muslim nations want to destroy Israel is, to use your word; specious.
Sue-
What is specious is your distinction with no difference. To declare the phrase “vanish from the page of time” some kind of a delicate, wistful reverie is as disingenuous as it is idiotic. Far be it from me, though, to rid you of your illusions.
Our little battle of views pales in comparison to the changes that may occur in Iran after this election. Anything that moves Iran away from the Islamic Theocracy Carter’s waffling brought about seems to me a form of progress.
Cheers,
Hoping for an end to a brutal occupational regime is quite a bit different than threatening to destroy a country. Speaking of illusions, taking statements out of context and then deliberately misinterpreting them is an easy way to make your point, but not an honest one.
The Islamic Theocracy in Iran was not a result of Carter’s waffling, it was a backlash of the overthrow of Iran’s democraticly elected and quite moderate leadership by the CIA and the subsequent brutalization of Iranians by the puppet Shah’s regime which the U.S. put into place.
For your edification:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155
Save your edification for this President. There’s nothing I can write or do to convince you that neither side in this conflict is clean.
Let it be said I failed to convince you.
As Billy Preston once sang, “Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.”
Cheers,
[Let it be said I failed to convince you.]
Likewise. Even after all of the evidence I’ve given you, you still insist that Islamic Fundamentalism, rather than Israel’s occupation, is the crux of the problem.
And though I’ve often agreed that both sides are at fault for exacerbating the conflict, you have never admitted that Israel’s occupation and illegal settlement activity is a violation of human rights, international law, and the core issue that began the whole conflict in the first place.
Tell me Mitch, why do you think there weren’t any instances of Islamic terrorism before the state of Israel was formed, even though there were many Jewish communities throughout the Middle East?
[[W]hy do you think there weren’t any instances of Islamic terrorism before the state of Israel was formed…?]
You can’t be serious. During fourteen centuries of Muslim history, dozens of wars and battles have been religiously justified by fatwa, and worse, by one group of Muslims declaring another ex-communicated, or takfir.
In truth, the history of all the major forms of Monotheism—which includes Islam—is a history of violence. Lest you go to the trouble of citing the likes of Karen Armstrong, who once wrote, “There is far more violence in the Bible than in the Qur’an; the idea that Islam imposed itself by the sword is a Western fiction, fabricated during the time of the Crusades when, in fact, it was Western Christians who were fighting brutal holy wars against Islam,” let me save you the trouble. This argument and others like it end any debate on Islamic violence and shift focus to the idea that it is not Islam per se but religious and cultural frustration with economic, political, and social factors that lead to Muslim violence…
But that’s fine. If you want to think the formation of Israel is the genesis of Islamic violence, it’s certainly not my place to disabuse you of this notion.
Cheers,
[The Islamic Theocracy in Iran was not a result of Carter's waffling, it was a backlash of the overthrow of Iran's democraticly elected and quite moderate leadership by the CIA and the subsequent brutalization of Iranians by the puppet Shah's regime which the U.S. put into place.]
Carter’s culpability here is limited to his unwillingness to have Shah Reza Mohammed Pahlavi abdicate to either Bahktiar or Bazargan. The CIA according to my friend’s parents at the time, who were State Dept. or CIA experienced an “intelligence failure.” It seems possible, that this “failure” could have been useful in the 1980 elections.
[But that’s fine. If you want to think the formation of Israel is the genesis of Islamic violence, it’s certainly not my place to disabuse you of this notion.]
Very likely the genesis of recent post WWII violence in the Arabic world and with even greater certitude the evolution from secular Pan-Arabic socialism towards a literal revisionist “Wahabist” paleolithic mentality as leadership in a propaganda rumour ridden cultural matrix.
Yet the following is pretty accurate except that Jews driven out of Christendom were assimilated in the Arabic and Farsi Islamic Sunni and Shi’a world until Wahabism. Wahabism began to replace some of the tribal identities and national identities, this has accellerated since 1978.
[You can't be serious. During fourteen centuries of Muslim history, dozens of wars and battles have been religiously justified by fatwa, and worse, by one group of Muslims declaring another ex-communicated, or takfir.
In truth, the history of all the major forms of Monotheism—which includes Islam—is a history of violence. Lest you go to the trouble of citing the likes of Karen Armstrong, who once wrote, "There is far more violence in the Bible than in the Qur'an; the idea that Islam imposed itself by the sword is a Western fiction, fabricated during the time of the Crusades when, in fact, it was Western Christians who were fighting brutal holy wars against Islam," let me save you the trouble. This argument and others like it end any debate on Islamic violence and shift focus to the idea that it is not Islam per se but religious and cultural frustration with economic, political, and social factors that lead to Muslim violence…]
If we trash the cultural propaganda completely we have been forced to swill it becomes very evident that there has been a far greater influence of what I comfortably call “evil” or “bad” in the region. This is an corruption of those religions — including Christianity. What is accepted and called religion today, is the propagation of that evil. Anything can be done in the name of it. Maybe someone else will see that as a problem.
Mitch,
Once again you attempt to divert the issue by leaving off the qualifier, which was; “…even though there were many Jewish communities throughout the Middle East?”
As you well know, the context of this conversation has been centered around whether religious hatred is at the core of the Israel/Palestine conflict. I can give many examples to prove that it’s primarily a land rights dispute, you have given me no examples that it’s a religious dispute. The fact that one side are Muslims and the other Jews seems to be enough for you.
But that’s typical of 80% of the American population. We’ve all been taught from childhood (because of the Holocaust), that Jews are weak defenseless victims who deserve sympathy and protection from anti-Semitism. At the same time we learned (because of the plane hijackings and Olympic hostage event) that Muslims, especially Palestinians, are evil anti-Semitic terrorists.
So that…is that. There’s nothing more to know or learn about the Israel/Palestine issue.
(sigh)
Regarding religious violence, we all agree; the three major religions have fought wars and committed terrible atrocities in the name of their so called peaceful religion. However, that wars and battles have been fought in the name of Islam, does not in itself prove that the Israel/Palestine conflict is a result of ancient tribal hatreds.
Any act of terrorism is undeniably a reaction to “religious and cultural frustration with economic, political, and social factors.” All terrorism is done by virtually powerless individuals and disenfranchised groups who desperately and violently lash out at their powerful oppressors. Terrorism isn’t an ideology, it’s a method to carry out an ideology or a defense of one’s homeland in the absence of a structured army and expensive weaponry.
It’s human nature to label people by what they do; he’s a carpenter, she’s a banker, he’s a terrorist. In America, when we hear of acts of violence committed by anyone but an Anglo-Saxon or a Jew, we never ask why someone would do such a thing. We already know why: it’s because they’re Ragheads, or Redskins, or Savages, or Niggers, or Japs. It’s what they do, those people.
All I ask is that we put away our accepted stereotypes for a few moments, look at the Israel/Palestine situation for what it really is, and focus on that instead of the diversionary propaganda. Is that really so hard to do?
Sue:
I was trying to say on “Con Games” today that you are on the wrong team. You need to seperate your pro-Palestinian views from the likes of Bin Ladin, the president of Iran (at least for another day), and those who say the Holocaust needs to be studied further. I get your point on the origins of “denialism” but you go out on the limb, like it or not, with literally some of the worst people in the world.
You say you don’t do this and that others do it for you. I don’t completely buy that based on multiple discussions on-air and off. I think you do far too much parsing of those who would destroy Israel–far too much.
Best, MIchael!
Michael,
And I was trying to say that the reason you and others think I’m on the wrong team is because that’s what my opponents want you to think. They want my message marganalized and ignored. That’s why they label me anti-Semitic and a terrorist sympathizer, so that people like you will think I’m on the wrong team.
I have spent a lot of time and energy defending myself from those unwarranted labels, but to no avail. Once the label is attached, it can never be removed, even though I’ve made it abundantly clear that I am not a Holocaust denier, nor an Israel hater, nor an anti-Semite.
Calling anyone who criticises Israel anti-Semitic and aligning them with terrorists is a well worn trick of the Zionist sympathizers. I’m disappointed that you have not only fallen for it, but routinely promote that despicable stereotype on your show and blog. Whenever I talk about Israel, you steer the conversation toward anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. So who needs to seperate my pro-Palestinian views from the likes of bin Laden and Ahmedinijad?
You refuse to learn the facts about the Israel/Palestine issue. You refuse to learn the facts about Holocaust Revisionism. Instead you rely on others to tell you what to think. You are doing yourself and your audience a grave disservice.
You say I’m on the wrong side. I’m on the side of human rights, justice and freedom. What side does that put you on?
Sue,
[…even though there were many Jewish communities throughout the Middle East.]
Very well then, why don’t these Jewish communities continue to thrive throughout the Middle East?
Evidence of a religious component to Middle Eastern strife not only exists, it is legion. If you empirically examine the concept of Jihad as it has been used to justify violence, it breaks down into at least three categories:
Expansion of Islam
Liberation from non-Muslim rule
Overthrow of Apostate regimes
To find an example of Jihad for the Expansion of Islam, you have to go back to the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, during which Wahhabi-Saudi subjugation of adjacent territories eventually lead to the consolidation of the Arab Peninsula under the House of Saud.
To find examples of Liberation from non-Muslim rule, you need look no further than your beloved Palestine, but you mustn’t overlook Kashmir, Chechnya, and Bosnia.
The most recent examples of Jihad used to Overthrow Apostate regimes are Algeria and Egypt during the 1990s; some contend the former Soviet Union belongs in this category, and if you can accept that premise, an argument that the United States (the “far enemy”) belongs in this category isn’t outrageous. I do not abide this thinking. Rather, I think the former Soviet Union failed under other forces, and that the effect on the U.S. is not yet known…
In the 1970s and -80s, Islamic Jihad became an increasingly prominent term in Middle Eastern political discourse, both as a rallying cry against Israel, and as the basis for opposition to non-Muslim governance. In this context, the increasing popularity of Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones and other writings formed a significant departure from the doctrine of Saudi Wahhabism.
One significant departure involves the grounds for ex-communication [takfir]. Qutb believed that only God [Allah] warranted sovereignty, and that, therefore, attributing sovereignty to any non-Islamic government constituted idolatry [shirk]. By contrast, Wahhabbism held the believer in a foreign land who observed its laws committed no such violation. Similarly, Qutb asserted that the Muslim testimony of faith (“There is no god but God,” which is strikingly similar to the Jewish Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one!”) constituted proof that Allah is the only ruler and source of law.
A second significant departure involves the concept of Jihad itself. Qutb agreed with the Wahabbi notion of Jihad as a means of eliminating a believer’s obedience to any non-Islamic ruler or government. But where Wahabbism views Jihad as a means of extending the protections of Islamic governance to believers living under non-Islamic rule, Qutb viewed it as an obligation to eliminate Apostate rule—a subtle distinction, but an important one that has enjoyed acceptance by the likes of Osama bin Laden.
I won’t continue to bore you with my analysis since you’ve already dismissed it as “diversionary propaganda.” What takes the bite out of your criticism is that the wholesale condemnation of my analysis is absolutely necessary to preserve the foundation of your own.
Cheers,
Mitch,
I’ve acknowledged that Islamic extremism exists. I’ve acknowledged that Islamic extremists commit terrorism to further their agenda. I’ve even acknowledged that there is an Islamic extremist faction of the Palestinian Resistance Movement.
Meanwhile, you have never acknowledged that there even is such a thing as a Palestinian Resistance Movement. Or that Israel’s occupation is a violation of International law and human rights. Or that some acts of terrorism could possibly be sparked by anger stemming from the persecution and oppression of Palestinians by Israelis. Instead, you put the sole blame for the Israel/Palestine conflict, as well as every terrorist act ever committed by a Muslim, on Wahhabism and Jihad.
Despite my numerous concrete examples of the Middle East conflict being a struggle by indigenous people to retain their homes, land and dignity, your assertion is that the only reason Palestinians attack Jews is because Muslims as a whole are involved in a Jihad against all non-Mulsims in order to attain Islamic dominance. If you ask me, that amounts to “wholesale condemnation of my analysis…to preserve the foundation of your own.”
You still haven’t explained why, despite Jews living in their midst for hundreds of years, Muslims didn’t engage in Jihad to “wipe them out” prior to 1947. If you can answer that, then maybe you can answer your own question, “why don’t these Jewish communities continue to thrive throughout the Middle East?”
Mitch and Sue,
there is a middle perspective. I don’t think either of you are viewing this with the cold callous eyes of an impartial observer. Maybe I am desensitized but the conflict seems to grow from cultural/religious codependence across the “divide.” the leaderships of both require the other.
[[M]aybe you can answer your own question, “why don’t these Jewish communities continue to thrive throughout the Middle East?”]
Perhaps I can:
[...where Wahabbism views Jihad as a means of extending the protections of Islamic governance to believers living under non-Islamic rule, Qutb viewed it as an obligation to eliminate Apostate rule...]
Sounds exactly like the radical Christians defending the shooting of the abortion doctor. And the radical Jews defending Israel’s killing of 1400 people in Gaza.
What’s the point? We all agree there are radical violent elements in all religions. That still doesn’t give the Israelis the right to oppress and segregate millions of innocent people.
Or are you insinuating this is the view of all Palestinians?
Regarding your analogy between the incident in Lahore and the disappearance of the Jewish communities from Arab countries…
Bzzzzz….wrong answer. Please try again.
Here’s a head start…
“The Jewish presence in Syria dates back to biblical times and is intertwined with the history of Jews in neighboring Eretz Israel. With the advent of Christianity, restrictions were imposed on the community. The Arab conquest in 636 A.D, however, greatly improved the lot of the Jews. Unrest in neighboring Iraq in the 10th century resulted in Jewish migration to Syria and brought about a boom in commerce, banking, and crafts. During the reign of the Fatimids, the Jew Menashe Ibrahim El-Kazzaz ran the Syrian administration, and he granted Jews positions in the government.
Syrian Jewry supported the aspirations of the Arab nationalists and Zionism, and Syrian Jews believed that the two parties could be reconciled and that the conflict in Palestine could be resolved. However, following Syrian independence from France in 1946, attacks against Jews and their property increased, culminating in the pogroms of 1947, which left all shops and synagogues in Aleppo in ruins. Thousands of Jews fled the country, and their homes and property were taken over by the local Muslims.”
Note there was no Jihad against Jews in Syria prior to the runup to Israel’s formation. The story is similar for every Arab nation. Why do you think that is?
Clearly there was voter fraud in Iran because it didn’t end with the results we wanted. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must have stolen the election because Iranians took to the streets in protest of the results. Ahmadinejad rigged the election because he announced himself as the winner before the results came in.
This is funny to me. Just because the world doesn’t like Ahmadinejad, doesn’t mean his people feel the same. Just because people protested the result doesn’t make the results wrong. Both of the candidates announced that they had won the election before the results came in. The people who are protesting are mostly students, which is sometimes covered up by saying things like “People of all ages are protesting.” Which is true people of all ages are protesting, but the large majority of them are students or younger. Why does this matter? In the only independent poll given by an outside source, Ahmadinejad was ahead 2 to 1. This was true for the overall population, but amongst students it was almost the reverse results. So it is no surprise that the youth of the Iran is out protesting the results that are backed up by both the only independent poll and the lack of response amongst Ahmadinejads powerful, governmental critic in the international community. No country has openly contested the result despite the extreme hatred for the Iranian President.
Of course I guess because I’m looking at the actually fact surrounding this election, I’ll probably be condemned as a Ahmads supporter and guilty of everything he is. This is the bias that history is full of. It has already been written that Ahmadinejad rigged his election and suppresses his people, when the fact is his people elect him and follow him. don’t give up hope though. The average age in Iran is 25, so enough of the elder voters who voted for Ahmad will be dead or at least out numbered by the increasingly “liberal” younger voters next election. At that point do you think all the media will question the result once a more liberal candidate is voted in?
We only question the things we don’t like.