And when I do answer it's not enough. Neither are your questions enough; when I say proper assertions I mean supported by the evidence of your other points or sources. Very well. It's an essay, probably a short one I can do quickly but you never know, I may get carried away, and I'll not promise it before next weekend. What's to cover is the Jewish presence there in the nineteenth century, no doubt an explanation of zionism, the influx of immigrants at the turn of the 20th century, the exchanges of deeds, the Arab riots, proposed solutions, 1948 and a number of wars. The point is to show clearly that the view you are propounding, or at least questioning me on, is at best a distortion. In the meantime I suggest that you can be researching alternate views on Israel to the one you are adopting. If you haven't already I don't know why, and if you have I don't see why you're being stingy about where you're coming from. I propose you kindly show me some source that you can rely on in making these assertions. Certainly if you ask me for a source on anything, I will endeavour to provide one, or concede a point, or acknowledge, I can't provide evidence of xyz. Further I ask you to consider what you would support in that area, if you are clear about it, should you conclude to stick with your assumptions. A secondary result for me would be to disagree on all the history and still support a solution that can realistically bring satisfaction to the parties involved.

For your lack of effort you hardly deserve answers, but do bear with me.

Hello,

100,

It really is not lack of effort that is my stumbling block, but lack of an objective response. With respect you do not seem to be able to respond as someone that has no direct personal / emotional connection, no pre determined ideas of the cause consequence or justification of the Palestinian / Israeli issue.

You said that you didn't want to write essays so I tried to keep it brief. You don't answer, as you said you did, all you do is shift the discussion to a different angle.

I think the crux of the matter for me is the fact that so many discussions, about this subject go on for so long and never reach a conclusion, that I hoped I could get some reasonably brief answers, without having to go there.

In all honesty I do think that a complete withdrawl is not a realistic suggestion, as much as, for me, that would seem to be the most just. I do not doubt or question the right of Israel to exist, just the means, route and methods of its existance, in the place that it exists.

There really is no need to highlight what you see as lack of effort on my part, when had I sourced any relevant information, I feel that you would have produced your own sources of evidence to back up your own assertions. I thought that was what you wanted to avoid.

I will produce some of the sources (where possible) that I have based my opinions on and will look forward to reading what you have to say. I too am not afraid of what you have to say.

Look forward to hearing from you soon.

TTFN

:twisted:

"Admin" wrote:

"muslim_kuri" wrote:

"Admin" wrote:

Its a political, geographic war.

still doesnt make it right

Fighting for freedom is wrong?

New motto: let the oppressed stay oppressed! wahay, and end to war is at hand!

what i meant is its pointless fighting and killing people over land...both parties should sort something out without having to resolve to violence

"muslim_kuri" wrote:

"Admin" wrote:

"muslim_kuri" wrote:

"Admin" wrote:

Its a political, geographic war.

still doesnt make it right

Fighting for freedom is wrong?

New motto: let the oppressed stay oppressed! wahay, and end to war is at hand!

what i meant is its pointless fighting and killing people over land...both parties should sort something out without having to resolve to violence

Heeheeheeheee!

Hoohoohoo!

You really are a naive idealist!

IMO violence is one of the only to decisively sort out a problem where two parties are fully opposed.

Ging Ging,

If you don't stop scoring points I won't bother with this. I know you play a wierdo but I'm not having it. What I've said to you is genuine of me, and if you can't respect that and talk nice; You can make a hell of a lot more effort, Ging Ging, if you aren't simply taking the piss. It isn't as though I haven't asked.

Irfan,

That isn't how I've treated you, or your sources, or any, and if you read carefully it's what Ging Ging's setting me up for. Pretty vile, that.

I'm out of things to say to Admin.

Only muslim_kuri even begins to get it but Admin likes to trash that for a laugh. Sick guy.

I'm pretty fed up, not with the disagreements, but with the sheer inanity of attitudes.

Shabbat Shalom

"Admin" wrote:

IMO violence is one of the only to decisively sort out a problem where two parties are fully opposed.

even if it means killing innocent men/women/children???

Ging Ging and Admin well done & well said thanks for taking the time and trouble to say what you have done. I sometimes just feel despair when the clear facts stare us in the face and some try to dispute them so i just dont say anything but the minimum

esp this issue it gets me in a very bad way and i'm usually choked up

sometimes my despair is so complete that i just feel like Muslim Kuri and think we shouldnt fight for our rights and live as lambs ready for the slaughter

"muslim_kuri" wrote:

"Admin" wrote:

IMO violence is one of the only to decisively sort out a problem where two parties are fully opposed.

even if it means killing innocent men/women/children???

Are you a pacifist? I find that a sick naivety which alot of people in my age group are infected with. Sorry about my laughter, but I found it hilarious. And extremely naive.

if both sides only talk, the side with the upper hand has no inclination to give a fair deal. After all it was ther first intifada which helped bring around the Oslo peace acord, where the palestinians gained alot. More than anything they gained hope. The second Intifada happened when that wsa lost again due to inaction. See; no violence no inclination to complete the process.

People die all the time.

Death is better than oppression. (adapted from the Quran)

In this day and age innocence is relative (apart from kids).

Obviously you should avoid innocents at all costs, but who is innocent?

Is the settler who has denied Palestinians the right to a free life innocent?

Is the soldier having drinks on his break innocent? What about on his birthday? IS he still not the same soldier who was shooting at kids the day before?

Are the civillians, who have just finished their active duty and now in reserve innocent?

What is a civillian?

You are being confused by the media.

What I find sick is how the media is showing what happened in London and equating it with what Israelis went through everyday; Whilst most londoners (and brits) are innocent, and only the gov is to blame, in Israel most of the populatin is to blame for the situation and despair of the palestinians.

No justice No peace. The only reason Sharon is pulling out of gaza is because Israeli presence there is unsustainable, with severe financial and human casualties. The west bank is calmer, thus no pull out.

After all it was the first Primeminister of Israel who woved not to give up terrorism until there was an Israel. Its Ironic his vision has now been adopted by his enemy.

When Ehud Barak (former primeminister of Israel) was asked about the plight of the palestinians, and what owuld have happened if he was born palestinian, he replied he would have chosen terrorism.

Freedom is a thing you have to fight for. Just because we here are born free, we cannot assume it is the same all over the world. Just because we have been born free, we do not value it. However if we lost it, we would fight to regain it. Guaranteed. Then we would learn the value of freedom.

(currently we also have to fight to keep our freedom by beating the extremists.)

In the long run, Israel WILL guarantee A palestinian homeland, as if they do not they will be outnumbered in their own country! It would be ironic in such a situation if the Israeli's were then ruled over by their opressed!

American freedom was won through violence.

Nazism was defeated throgh violence.

The british empire was formed through violence.

AFghanistan was liberated through violence.

Pakistan and India were granted freedom due to violence.

Now if there was no political maouvering (UN resolution) over Kashmir, and all out war, that conflict would also have been soved long ago.

Saying that there have been major problems caused throught violence aswell:

The formation of Israel.

WW1, WW2 and countless others.

Bin Laden

Chechnya

Bosnia.

okay admin i get your point

sorry about taking the mick tho...

Well it looks like the 'ceasefire' is over.

It will be back to the normal depressing reality soon.

"Admin" wrote:

sorry about taking the mick tho...

apology accepted.

i dont know enough about the sufferings and what the palestinians have 2 go through everyday and thats my fault...i should educate myself more with what is happening 2 our brothers and sisters and then maybe i will think twice about being so naive...

naivety and Pacifism do get on my nerves. (I used to be very naive...)

Lats year on Armistice (11/11 at 11), a guy I was working with me (non muslim, native) went to me he disagreed with war, and he did not want the minutes silence!

Whilst I aint too bothered about any silences either, I ripped the person apart. He never sat near me again.

"Admin" wrote:

naivety and Pacifism do get on my nerves. (I used to be very naive...)

Lats year on Armistice (11/11 at 11), a guy I was working with me (non muslim, native) went to me he disagreed with war, and he did not want the minutes silence!

Whilst I aint too bothered about any silences either, I ripped the person apart. He never sat near me again.

lol that doesnt suprise me...hes probably shaken up 4 life!

Hello,

100,

What point scoring?

I ask questions, you avoid an answer.

I ask for your honest opinion, you avoid the answer.

I state my version of the situation, you resort to deflecting your response.

What I find detestable is the hypocracy of your attitude. You ask or suggest or seemingly demand that Muslims in particular, obviously, on this forum, condemn terrorism and the killing of innocents but refuse even to acknowledge openly that Israel is an illegal occupying force that has murdered 100s of innocent people, a blatant fact to most people.

I do think that until people that have the self righteous clanish, "we" can do no wrong kind of mentality that you and others that I have discussed this with seem to have, it will get no where.

I'm really not setting you up for anything, (please explain what you think that is), if you are telling the truth, I would only be setting myself up to have to retract what I have said. If you are not telling the truth or are just not happy to concede that there may be some issues of illegality in the Israeli / Palestinian situation then you are only setting yourself up, for whatever you suggest I was trying to set you up for.

And to be honest if you cannot give simple responses to any "assertions" that I make then it does seem pointless.

TTFN

:twisted:

Admin, by your logic you're a murderer, probably an enemy.

Ging Ging, sod it, I might get back to you. You don't even give sources despite requests. I've been here long enough and as you can see I have shared my view before to no avail. You promote distrusting me. Screw you. I find you pretty ruthless in getting your way. I acknowledge a lot of uncomfortable truths, but not your view. You may be skipping paragraphs.

100, come off it geeza.. have a read of what ur writing..

mate ur in denial about the Israel, Palestine confilct.. big time.. wake up dude

Great. Bye.

lol.. oi come back..

anyways.. for those still interested in this discussion.

i mean, heres a coupla pennies worth of views from me. i aint no historian, or economist or achaelogist of the holy lands. i personally dont have a scooby doo on the agreements, deeds, religious texts, that gives either parties rights to the lands...

but my basic understanding..

israelis think they got rights to da land as its written in religious texts.. and after all dem centuries they come back to reclaim it,... ok, fair do's.. i'd do da same.. (methods may be slightly different)

palestinians have been living there, and have told to move..across to make space for settlers. but they dont wanna give up their homes.. neither would I..

now, the way I see it, Jewish text says jews got right to da land.. Muslim texts says muslims got rights to da land.. Muslims were already living there, and jews were coming in from outside to create their own state.

now, wtf happened??. there been a few agreements.. ive seen many un maps with updated borders..

has anybody else seen these?,..

salaam

very interesting discussion below, relates to the topic of Israel aswell...
wat do you think?

[b]Transcript: John Ware on Muslim Council of Britain [/b]
[b]All but a tiny fringe of Muslim organisations in the UK have condemned the London suicide bombings. But are those organisations condemning in London what they are failing to condemn abroad? Panorama reporter John Ware is examining the role of the country's main Muslim organisation, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). [/b]
Here is a transcript of an interview with Mr Ware on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, followed by a response from the Muslim Council of Britain:

Carolyn Quinn: John first, the Muslim Council of Britain's Secretary General is Sir Iqbal Sacranie. He has condemned the London suicide bombings in forthright terms, hasn't he?

John Ware: Yes he has. He says that 'Islam can never justify evil actions of bombers' and he has urged everyone to 'look to our shared values and common humanity,' as he puts it.

Quinn: Two years ago, there were two British suicide bombers, like the London bombers both of Pakistani origin. They went to Tel Aviv to blow up Mike's Bar. Three people were killed. What did Sir Iqbal say then?

Ware: Well, on this occasion, he said that the loss of civilian life, and he mentioned both Palestinian and Israelis, couldn't be condoned. The Islamist group Hamas claimed the bombing. Their founder Sheikh Yassin was later assassinated by the Israelis. Now, what happened then was that, a year or so later, several Muslim organisations here in London held a memorial service for Sheik Yassin at the Central Mosque in Regents Park, and Sir Iqbal chose to attend the service and organisation, the MCB described Sheikh Yassin as "the renowned Islamic scholar."

Quinn: But doesn't Hamas have a political wing?

Ware: It does, although the Israeli government would say that Hamas's political and military agenda was set by Sheikh Yassin. Certainly he was the chief ideologist of an organisation whose charter seeks the destruction of Israel. And Hamas has conducted a fair number of the 160 or so suicide bombing attacks since the second intifada, which have killed over 500 people in total - again many of them civilians just as in London.

Quinn: One senior theologian whose Fatwas have been used to provide justification for suicide bombings directed at Israeli civilians is Dr Yusuf Qaradawi - the man who the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, welcomed to City Hall last year and described as "moderate".

Ware: Well, although Dr Qaradawi has condemned the London suicide bombings unequivocally here when it comes to Israel he says - and I'm quoting here an interview he gave: "We must all realise that the Israeli society is a military society - men and women. We cannot describe the society as civilian...they are not civilians or innocent".

He's also supported the use of child suicide bombers. During a TV debate in the Gulf - according to BBC monitoring - he said: "The Israelis might have nuclear bombs but we have the children bomb and these human bombs must continue until liberation".

Quinn: What's the Muslim Council of Britain had to say about Dr Qaradawi?

Ware: Like the Hamas leader Sheikh Yassin, the Muslim Council of Britain has also described Dr Qaradawi in fairly flattering terms. They've said he's " a distinguished Muslim scholar...a voice of reason and understanding."

Quinn: What's his position been on Iraq?

Ware: Dr Qaradawi's position on Iraq has supported the resistance which he has described as " valiant". I'm quoting here from the Lebanese National News agency website, where he is reported to have said "We call for material, military and human support ...the Muslims want the scholars to show the Arab and Muslim person's duty is towards this cause." So this, I guess, would imply support for attacks on British soldiers as well as American obviously.

Quinn: One of the Muslim Council's main affiliates is the Muslim Association of Britain which also claims to speak for Muslims here. What have they said about suicide bombings in Israel and Iraq?

Ware: A senior member of the MAB, the Muslim Association of Britain, Dr Azzam Tamimi, has said he supports suicide bombings in Israel. I should stress Dr Tamimi has condemned unequivocally the London bombings but he says that if he got the chance in Israel "I would sacrifice myself it's the straight way to pleasing my God".

Quinn: What has the government said about suicide bombings in Israel?

Ware: The government's position is clear cut: targeting civilians wherever they are is terrorism and Mr Blair has said so in terms. "We want nothing to do with people who support suicide bombers in Palestine or anywhere elsewhere" he has said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[b]Here is the response from Muslim Council of Britain spokesman Inayat Bunglawala. [/b]

Carolyn Quinn: Do you have any thoughts about the rather serious charges John Ware is making, alleging the Muslim Council of Britain never expressly condemns all suicide bombings.

Inayat Bunglawala: Well let me make clear then, once and for all, we condemn the killing of all innocent people, wherever they are. Human lives everywhere are of equal value, whether they are British, American, Iraqi or Palestinian. Jewish lives are not worth more than Palestinian lives. All are worth equal and it's been quite nauseating over the past week to see how Israel and its highly-placed supporters in the media have been trying to make political capital out of last week's atrocities against Londoners. It is shameful on them and shameful on those who are trying to help Israel improve its PR image after the brutalities it commits against the Palestinian people.

Quinn: This is now your chance to answer those charges, whether you failed to condemn in the Middle East what you have now condemned in London.

Bunglawala: We always condemn the taking of innocent life anywhere. But can I just make it clear here, it's quite misleading to compare the situation here in the UK with that in Israel. The 1.6 million Muslims in the UK live in peace. They are free to practice their faith and they are free to go about their daily lives without let or hindrance. The Palestinians, by contrast, live under a very brutal occupation, a very repressive Israeli military occupation, seeing their land every day being gobbled up by illegal Jewish settlements.

Quinn: But that still can't be justification for suicide bombing.

Bunglawala: No it cannot. But many of our own columnists, even members of parliament, have said that if they were Palestinians, if they were living under those conditions, if they were seeing their children humiliated in the way the Israelis humiliate their children, if they saw their children being blown to pieces, they would consider doing what the Palestinians do. Our own parliamentarians have said that. If they can say that, then of course Muslims will feel a greater affinity for the Palestinians.

Quinn: But you are now saying you must not, you should not, do that. That the Koran does not say that that's an acceptable practice.

Bunglawala: Absolutely. The Koran says you cannot take innocent life. But, again, to explain is not to justify. When we try and explain why the Palestinians are being driven to what they are doing it is not to justify it. It's trying to explain why they are doing what they are doing. Even our own parliamentarians have tried to do the same.

Quinn: Ok. Two other very brief points. Sheikh Yassin, the support that Sir Iqbal Sacranie has mentioned for him, as John Ware was saying, was that misguided?

Bunglawala: No it was not. Sheikh Ahmed Yassin is an Islamic scholar, was an Islamic scholar, was renowned throughout the Muslim world as an Islamic scholar and the Israelis assassinated him. Let's remember that. The Israelis broke international law. He was a quadriplegic man, a disabled man. He was coming out of the morning prayers and the Israelis sent F-16 fighter planes and they blew him up.

Quinn: He was the chief ideas man behind an organisation whose charter seeks the destruction of Israel.

Bunglawala: Well, just wait, if Israel claims to be a democracy, which it does at every opportunity, then it should bring people to justice by the courts of law, not blow them up by missiles.

Quinn: Ok, and the other person mentioned, a senior member of the Muslim Association of Britain, Dr Azzam Tamimi, whose said he supports suicide bombings in Israel. Now that group is one of your main affiliates.

Bunglawala: Well, the Muslim Council of Britain has over 400 affiliates.

Quinn (interrupting): So what do you say to them?

Bunglawala: There is a whole range of Muslim organisations. If he makes that comment he should answer for that.

Quinn: Well can't you cut him off?

Bunglawala: Well, Dr Azzam himself is a Palestinian. I can understand why he feels such pain for the Palestinians and why he can understand why others are driven to what they are doing. Dr Azzam Tamimi again, is respected. If our own parliamentarians can say they can understand why Palestinians are doing this, of course other Palestinians themselves will express similar feelings.

Quinn: But if your message now is one of solidarity here in Britain and that you are condemning suicide bombings across the world, then wouldn't a strong message be to cut off affiliation with people like that, to say you no longer can be regarded as one of us.

Bunglawala: No, then we would have to throw out our own members of parliament. I think what Dr Azzam is doing is trying to explain...

Quinn (interrupting): What do you mean? They've all been...are you talking about the members of parliament here?

Bunglawala: Yes, they've said they could understand. I mean, we have had Jenny Tonge, a senior member of the Liberal Democrats, Cherie Blair, the prime minister's wife, explaining why she could understand why the Palestinians are doing what they are doing. So this is not to justify...

Quinn: It is not condoning...

Bunglawala: It is not condoning. No, it's not condoning. It's trying to explain why they do what they do.

Hello,

100,

Don't try the frustrated, misunderstood with me because I am not that gullible or particularly interested.

If you cannot speak with open minded sincerity, as many on here have on sensitive issues, instead of your loyalty to your people, country, religion or whatever, then that is an issue for you to resolve, not one for me to understand, quite simply because I can't.

I thought I would in some way get a reasoned response to as I see it, reasoned question(s).

You were the one that offered sources, not me, I then said that I would, in agreement, source some information. Where are your sources, at least give me the opportunity to read them before you make your insipid and needless accusations of ruthlessness and mistrust.

Or would you prefer that I close my mind and quote sources, without a better understanding of the Jewish point of view. That would surely have led you to believe that I had little or no interest in the first place in your sources and / or opinions. Whether I agree with you or not, [i]after[/i] reading what you have sourced would be less open to accusations of bias or ignorance. I may not have changed my mind but simply would have had the chance to hear a "Jewish" point of view.

You have never shared a "basic" view of the situation, to my recollection. If I have missed an acknowledgment of some "uncomfortable truths" then I apologise.

I do not promote distrusting you at all, get over yourself, you are not that important to me, you take yourself much too seriously. By your total refusal to answer directly, time and time again you are promoting your own distrust. "sod it" - "distrusting me" - "screw you" - "ruthless" you really are so defensive.

TTFN

:twisted:

well said Irfan and very true

"irfan" wrote:

Any innocent life lost is regrettable, whether Palestinian or Israeli. We should work to relieve the Palestinains of their oppression rather than judge them on what they do in a situation we can't understand.

that makes sense

irfan, good post.

ging, i see you've hit the same brick wall i did not so long ago.

Hello,

Aasiyah,

It makes no sense to me to defend something that you passionately believe in with counter accusations or defensive word play.

If you believe in something know why you believe and how to reson that belief.

TTFN

:twisted: