User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 634
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
oh errm... i didn't mean it when i said that i will ask him...
the idea of going to gaza to raise awareness... and then not raising awareness... it just boggles the mind.
tell him - he may feel compelled to.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
any content at all would make a change
I agree with you there.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Galloway and Hamas tend not to give a damn about counterpoints, busy as they are engineering disaster, but here's one you know:
I haven't seen anyone seriously try to get everyone excited about Darfur, with this kind of disgusted rhetoric. Only about wars with Israel and wars between jihadis and westerners, like suckers for propaganda, and that isn't to dismiss Palestinian or Iraqi or Afghan plight, it is just that Muslims on the whole are pretty amoral loyalists if you're a Sudanese non-Muslim, or for that matter an Egyptian non-Muslim. Don't think the MB intends to fix that. So to me that's a bit disgusting. Just as I don't like Israel's policies to stoop to bullying, I would have thought Muslims might be equally prone to use their numbers wisely, and not so as to drown out all but the most explosive supplications. Peace is a likelier prospect if we're sure what we stand for. Like tom I'm never entirely sure what Muslims stand for in the matter, because a lot is said of which only a small amount is properly considerate rather than jingoist. And I naturally would say that, but myself I long ago gave up stirring the pot, especially in conversations with non-Muslims elsewhere. That's where it is, there is no peace push in this thread.
Care to explain this bit?
The problem with the Sudan issue is that the western world is more or less united in the view that what is happening there is wrong. The arab lands are also united that they don't believe the presented narrative.
This makes it different from the argument about Gaza/West Bank because... well... our government represents my view on this. It is horrendous. There is no argument to be had.
Yes, there are people who do overlook it and others who fail to mention the humanitarian disasters (the former of which are not callous and may simply be ignorant, the latter potentially callous), but unlike over Gaza/West Bank, there is no boycott that can be taken part in, little symbolism that will make people feel involved.
From the two fronts in Sudan, the darfur region was afaik majority Muslim, so portraying it as Muslim Vs non Muslim is slightly innacurate. (Southern Sudan is Christian and there is supposed to be a referendum on independence next year which may lead to even greater quantities of violence.)
This is difficult since different people can have different stances. in my opinion a more ideal solution would be a one state one where everyone has equal rights, but that is not acceptable to either side and I am in the extreme minority with this view.
Besides, this thread is less about the revulsion of israel and more about the revulsion of Egypt.
If the Muslim Brotherhood manage tot ake over, in the short term I do not see peace and security (I think everyone expects there to be much chaos - the brotherhood has moved on from when they reject Syed Qutb as they found his views too extreme) - but in the long term, there is a slight chance of something more tolerant.
(I only say that because I see that as a logical advancement of any extremism that becomes mainstream - over time, if it does not feel threatened, it will become more moderate as a natural evolution of ideas and people.)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
About Galloway, I find his way with a megaphone and his choice of crowds to be cynical vote-courting and if not legally incitement, frankly the same damn thing. I do not think George Galloway is for peace. And Hamas too, paint them how you like.
The ARAB world has long been SEIZING FERTILE LANDS and converting Africa, in fact that has been probably the only really successful African social project of the last century if not for centuries before, dispossessing, killing and converting the blacks. So really you can show me that the fertile north is a zillion percent Muslim and I won't be thinking hmm he has a point, far from it.
I don't understand what you wrote about the narrative you reject. My primary point is that there is nothing you add to your objections that distinguishes you from an irredentist Hamas supporter. Be yourself obviously, but don't go weasel on me please.
The mainstreaming of present day radicals is not something I look forward to, no matter your optimistic view of the ridiculously long-term. Supporting that is absolutely the opposite of supporting moderation, tolerance and peace.
Several posters have been very good at stoking tensions on this forum. Lately it's like you're doing your darnedest to be one of them and I find that sad. Beyond sad.
But by all means, Galloway and Hamas are doing something helpful and vital in the Palestinian interest AND in the interest of peace, not total annihilation. Nuh-uh.
So that's why I held off in this subject.
Not me rejecting the narrative - others elsewhere. but since our worlds rarely collide, there cna be less discussion and argumenting about it.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
True enough.
I don't see how this is entirely related tbh... My argument was not that it is muslim majority, hence it is in the right, but that the darfur Vs Sudanese government was not a Muslim Vs non muslim issue since both sides are afaik predominantly Muslim (however once side is arab, the other african, so there is a racial aspect to it).
Or am I missing the point?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Is that on re-reading what you wrote there?
The same would apply to the Christian right in America. They passionately defend Israel but seem coy about speaking up for the rights of Christian Palestinians who suffer the same human rights abuses as Muslim Palestinians.
Different people want different things. But most Muslims probably stand for the same things that most Jews and most Christians stand for.
no, just an addition to the post, asking you to clarify the issue.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Sorry. My point is that these sympathies are a great deal about enmity, not alleviating suffering, and it seemed like you had just said exactly that in defence of I'm not sure what.
Beast, "most people are good" is good, I do that, but it isn't an answer to "what do you stand for". Talking about the American Christian right isn't helpful either. I don't pop around for their sugar, or ftm for Netanyahu's. It is one thing for someone to post these stories and plead for peace, it is another to do so with partisanship in mind, and all I'm saying is peace is likelier if it's clear what everyone stands for.
Here we are, living nearby, getting on with life and often involved in one another's affairs, peaceably; and sometimes the raising of these issues is an attempt to export hostility; rather than seek solutions. My point, if you scroll up, was mainly directed at Sumaiya.
Thankyou for clarifying that. I agree with you.
Peace is likelier when people actually want it.
I do not think peace is at all close right now, because from what I see from the Israeli government, they do not want peace.
There may be a few citizens who want it, but it does not seem to be all that many.
peace is less likely now than it was a few years ago and each day that goes by, each settlement that gets build/extended/legitimised is making it even more less likely to occur in a peaceful manner.
I hold out no hopes for that and pretending that people on here can make it happen I do not think is a good delusion to have.
This thread was not about peace, or its inevitability or not, but about Egypt expelling George Galloway, who is an MP of UK, which I thought would have accounted for something over there.
(and no, I do not think Hamas is the problem - they can be dealt with, negotiated with. The Israeli government on the other hand cannot because it is the powerful one and it has nothing to lose and everything to gain with the current status continuing for a long time (and same goes for most arab regimes too - a foreign target to sloganeer about allows people to not look closer to home).)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
No. There are belligerents, and there are bad attitudes, but it is not like that.
Some of the settlements are definitely a problem. Some are legitimate, and some so well established it seems pointless and troublesome to object to their continuing development. The assumption that all settlement beyond the Green Line is unjust is not correct for me. Nor is the assumption on the part of many settlers that expanding Jewish-held territory is a positive thing. But it is easy to make this issue extremely central even to the will for peace, as you are doing, but whereas it is a crucial issue, it is not so.
When it was only about that I just bit my tongue; what prompted me was a particular comment and my response was particular.
Hamas remains committed in its charter, its propaganda and in all of its military and political activities to taking every inch of the land, and continues the myth that Arabs do not share in the responsibility for the whole conflict, as though Jews came merely as invaders; you know full well what the Hamas-type response is to Israel's existence in the Islamic heartlands; Hamas exploits its own and the Palestinians' weakness, goading Israel and then blaming Israel, and it is wishful nonsense to claim Hamas just want peace, or that they are actually the reasonable party in all this. And Israel has committed serious wrongs. And its neighbours have committed serious wrongs. Deporting Galloway mid-PR stunt is not one of them. Maybe we shall simply differ rather than rehash the issue any more; but it would be useful for neither side to pile on the excuses and the blame, invariably as a precursor to more violence.
If Hamas are committed to the 1967 borders there is NO REASON why their charter should not say so. Then we would know that is where they stand.
the charter and the land they have said they are willing to negotiate - not even for peace, but for removing the blockade on gaza.
Asking for them to drop their charter before the negotiations even start - while Israel keeps building is disingenuous at best in my eyes.
Asking them to change their demands is exactly what negotiations are for - the whole point. If you start with Israel beinf given everything it wants before teh negotiations even start, it has no need for them to succeed, but only for the negotiations to continue, even for ever. That is what happened before - peace was achieved for negotiations and in that time israeli settlements took advantage of the peace and tripled in population.
Nor for me - any legitimately bought and paid for land is the owners property to do as they wish (but this may ned negotiation too in order to cover for legitimately owned palesitnian land that is lost to israel where the legitimate owners are not allowed bacck). however expansion and new buildings do change the nature of the negotiations.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
What is strange about asking Hamas to put their aims in their charter? If Hamas' aim remains Israel's destruction do you not see why that leaves Israel's government in a very difficult position regarding any concessions? If they say they want the 1967 Jordanian annexes and Gaza for their state how does that in any way represent a concession, if that is genuinely what they want? It is ridiculous to make that outcome negotiable. Israel is a muppet making concessions that never appease Hamas but which amount to victories. Your argument also irritates me in that it ignores the structure of the MB drive. Al Qaeda is now very big in Gaza and the Sinai, and Hamas cooperates with that. This is not to exonerate Israel, it is another very specific response to your points.
(Plus, watching The Apprentice USA last night I noticed I just can't witness an argument without wanting to get involved.)
no I don't see that - what makes it difficult is not going to the negotiating table.
Positions can be changed, but trying to force them through violence may not be as... easy as it suspected.
Except for when they challenged such groups, even killing one of their leaders recently?
Hamas is no where near perfect - it is authoritarian, has many issues, but Israel is not even going to the negotiating table.
It is not about exoneration, but the biggest obstacle to peace is the unwillingness of Israel to even get onto the negotiating table.
Human nature - and what keeps forums ticking over. If everyone agrees, all topics would be one post deep.
EDIT - either way, it is pointless. its not like anything will change.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
At least (if I read right) YOU believe in 1967 borders and support peace, which is really what peace is about. Not having a charter demanding the destruction of Israel. That charter is so disgusting and the propaganda so relentless I am finding your argument very audacious. My understanding is that Palestinian negotiators demand a settlement freeze, and Israel is not even echoing my concerns that the Hamas charter should change. If my understanding is wrong let negotiations commence, but really it must be clear that Hamas has an unacceptable aim: total victory over Israel. You seem to be saying, quite simply, that I am wrong. What then is the benefit of this charter?
Except that they have been willing to atleast say they can negotiate that. That is the thing - if Israel (or other parties) do not negotiate with them, the charter will stay the same. If on the other hand, something is offered, I really do think thy will be willing to drop some provisions of the charter.
The whole point of negotiations is that people start off with differing ideas and stances, then they negotiate and find middle grounds. That is real negotiation, not the other faux negotiations which involve having all the stronger sides demands met without meeting any of the weaker sides.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
If the charter is a negotiating point it is all out blackmail, but it is not, and the blackmail is incidentally useful as long as the charter stands. If there are senior Hamas people who want a final end to hostilities through immediate negotiation I take my hat off for whatever they do to that end, and I take my hat off to Israelis who do the same. The Hamas charter remains an absolute barrier.
No one is expecting a settlement where the charter stays the same.
However, this is less about facts on the ground than ever expanding settlements.
The charter may have been blackmail if it was formulated with the singular intent that it was the place to start negotiations from - it was not and was formulated as a plan of action.
Placing words as a barrier to negotiation is not conducive to peace and there have been very few terrorist organisations beaten via military might alone - most required negotiations and most negotiations were preceded by periods where people proclaimed negotiations to be impossible.
What is required in the short term for negotiations is:
1. an Israel willing to negotiate
2. A united Palestinian body to negotiate their side.
I see neither happening.
Could Israel get rid of its Gaza problem by simply handing it over to Egypt wholesale? (of course, there would be much enmity and chaos between the aparatus of the Gazans ans the egyptian government too...)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
On your closing point, from Israel's founding until 1967 Gaza was in Egypt. Israel has tried this route and Egypt did not want Gaza. For Israel's part Egypt would still be welcome to administer Gaza if it could.
I do not argue that because of the charter Israel cannot negotiate. Only that because Hamas has always been consistent with its charter, that as a political document is uniquely and ambitiously hateful, it is very unlikely that Israel can trust them in negotiation. If they are not what their charter describes perhaps they can be negotiated with. You seem very confident about them. In any event they will say when they are ready.
Hey Joie, you have a talent for writing wonderfully concisely, could you clarify that for me.
I hear that you're saying that whilst Muslims seem to care about something, its hard to figure out what apart from "stop hurting the ummah."
When you say "where they stand" could you give some examples so I can see what you mean?
Thanks
(re: getting into arguments) I hate arguments that differ to mine because they shake me out of my comfort zone. Then I love them because they force me to think where otherwise I was becoming stagnant.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
I meant that this is a very specific humanitarian concern, whereas other humanitarian concerns in other places, involving the ummah, do not elicit such strong sympathies. The sympathy is strongly partisan against Israel - in particular I do not think Galloway's campaign was predominantly about easing suffering, because there are much easier ways to do so. The failure is still a success for him because it was about PR for the Palestinian cause. That cause is not by and large to obtain from Israel land captured in 1967. The goal is conflict with Israel until Israel is defeated. I would be impressed to see campaigns here for a peace organisation that promoted a peaceful ideology in Gaza. There are many in Israel that pressure the Israeli government. Israeli textbooks are nothing like the ones in the Arab world and particularly in Gaza.
Where I stand is the occupation and fighting with Palestinians is disastrous. Perhaps peace can be achieved diplomatically - so everyone get on with it. Israel requires defence measures that it must not abuse, these are matters of life and death that I do not as readily condemn Israel for. I believe some terrible things about the culture in Gaza, the prescription for trouble. All the blame in the world is not useful for the main thing in the end result, which is a land deal bringing peace.
Israel fought the PLO and Hizbollah in southern Lebanon but it has withdrawn, and has not expanded it's borders since 1967. Hostilities do not benefit Israel and if Israelis trusted Hamas and a unified Arab body on a deal they would strike a deal. It is possible that Arab states will be able to finalise a plan which properly tests this - so far they have set out with very hard demands on Israel. But they will need the ear of Hamas, which they do not presently have. They need Hamas to be onside with Fatah, and they need Hamas to honour agreements no matter what other players such as Syria have to say.
The settlements issue is one I raise a great deal with Israelis and Jews. Some settlers are a serious problem and will have to be uprooted. Some are hostile. But it is not a present matter of life and death, and does not in fact preclude a deal that accounts for demographic changes on both sides of the 1967 border.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that Muslim rally around the issues that involve non-Muslims, and that loyalty is not about about rights or peace. If it was, there would be as much if not more outrage over situations in Muslim lands.
Such as? I had thought the primary issue right now was the almost complete blockade on Gaza that is only allowing very basic foodstuffs and not much else through - not allowing the people to rebuild or live their lives.
Personally, I am not even concerned about statehood and such matters (but maybe I should be?) I just want the people to have liveable lives, with hope and prosperity, be that in an independent Gaza, in a Gaza unified with Israel, as part of a Palestinian state or even unified with Egypt.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Such as supporting the UN appeal and not leading an unsanctioned convoy resulting in numerous casualties and the death of an Egyptian soldier - and of course some PR against Israel.
Pages