Jews Vs Muslims

Marg I certainly did not mean the state of Israel, I meant Jewish people scattered around the world. As a group they tend to be very successful economically and professionally and I stand by my comment about believing the greater group of humanity likely envies that success.

Originally posted by Astronomer70
Marg I certainly did not mean the state of Israel, I meant Jewish people scattered around the world.

I understand Astronomer.

As a group they tend to be very successful economically and professionally and I stand by my comment about believing the greater group of humanity likely envies that success.

Well on this one I agree that many may become sucessful but Is a reason as why occurs.

But I can not imagine anybody be envious when other non Jewish can be as sucessful.

It doesn't ring well with me.

Unless you mean in the muslin world but I see it more as the anger against the for US backing them up rahter than envy because of their sucess.

Occurs you are entitle to your opinions.

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi


Typifies Islamic thought in that Muslim's are superior to non-Muslim's (as do Muslim's - see Dhimmis.

Dhimmi is not an Islamic concept but an arab concept which was created to deal with all those people that came under it's rule. Thats why there is no mention of the word "dhimmi" or any of it's sub-words in the Quran.

And becuase it is not mentioned in the Quran it has not set or defined parameters to which is acceptable or not and this is why you often hear contradicting arrugments from different sources. In certains parts of Arabia they where implementing laws under the "dhimmi system" which where different to laws passed under other areas of the region under the "dhimmi system".

This is becuase the laws in the "dhimmi system" as we'll call it are not set or defined hence people make up there own laws through religous/political or nationalist opinion.

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
Most Arab countries are autocratic (Iran is a theocracy in which the supreme leaders are not elected and stay there for life). Economic and opposition issues are also very relevant.

Thats true. You should blame the British empire for that after the collapse of the Ottoman empire they installed these monarchs into power against the will of the muslims in that region who anted to rejoin there countries under a single leader chosen by them but the British "divide and conquer" stratergy was not cool with it.

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
All the above suits the Islamic world PERFECTLY. Therefore Islamofacist is a relevant term.

No not really.

Muslims majority countries all have different structures and laws from each other. For example in Saudi arabia there Sharia law forbids stem cell reseach, IFV and Genetic engineering on the other hand Sharia law in Iran states the exact opposite in which Stem cell research, Genetic engineering and IFV studies are encouraged
by the law. e.g. :

But here in Iran groundbreaking research is flourishing. Iran's clerics and political leaders actively promote science and technology to help enhance its global status.

Click on the link and then in the website click on "watch this report" to watch the video :
www.channel4.com...

Each muslim country has it's own laws, government, education policies etc... so it's incredibly stupid of you to assume that "it suit's muslims" just becuase you see one group doing something that suits your propaganda agenda.

Did you even know that monarchs, inherited power, dictatorships etc... are all forbidden under islam law.

Did you also know that right now there are no 2 countries with a muslim majority which have the exactly the same laws, government, education polices in the world.

This is becuase each country does it's own thing.

The most populus muslim country on earth is Indonesia which is democratic and also has had a democratically elected female president. Pakistan which is the 2nd most populus muslim country also had a female president when it used to be a democracy before Musharif.

So where you say suits the Islamic world perfectly shows you lack of knowlage about the subject on hand.

Islam is neither facist or a supporter of dictatorship. Some of it's supporter may be but th islamic world is not and cannot be becuase it's not apart of there laws or systems.

Alot of people see the arab world do things and they assume these are Islamicly supported when infact what you're seeing is Arab nationalist movements. People need to understand the differences between arab nationalism, Islamic millitans, Quran, Dhimmi, secular arab dictators, islamic millitant movements, islamic nationalists, secular nationalist muslims, nationalist muslims, nationalist localised islamic movements, anti-occupation movements etc... before making posts on a subject which cannot be covered in a mere 6500 characters.

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi

This is a World vs. Muslim issue - Ask the Hindus, ask the Bhuddists, ask the coptic Christians, damn there are just soooo many people to ask as evidence.

[edit on 31/8/06 by JudahMaccabbi]

Thats intersting that you mention those things. Also look at history and you will see that these people also killed and oppressed muslims too. A large majority of the violence being seen against those people you mention above is in direct relation to the violence those people dished out against others.

Take a look at kashmir. The Indian/Hindu's where killing, raping, and massacring Kashmir muslims before the first islamic millitan even existed in Kashmir. Islamic millitancy followed Hindu's war crimes during India's un-popular occupation of Kashmir which the locals where against and wanted India out of there country.

The above is just 1 example.

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
Marg,

I see any race bashing as a way to bring out a debate that will end in nothing, I am all for equal opportunity Bashing muslins is not better that bashing Jews but it seems to be more acceptable and people fell less offended.

Fact is that Muslims brought down the WTC and killed 3000 civilians, fact is that the Muslims attacked the London underground and killed 60+ people, fact is that Muslims attacked the trains in Madrid killing 200+ people, same is true in Bali, Taba, Mombasa, Tanzania, Turkey, Tel-Aviv, Jerusalem, Beer-Sheva, Haifa, Ghirba etc. etc. etc.

This was perpetrated under the flag of Islam.

I do not like sound like I do.

I am mearly trying to wake people up. Most Muslims are not enemies but we cannot be lax. And Muslims need to fight radicals off for the sake of their religion otherwise they are accomplices.

Thats a very simple way of looking at it. Why don't you also add the stuff which is fueling islamic radical movements like western military bases in muslims countries, Western arming and funding of dictators in muslim countries etc...

All these islamic proplems started in the middle east becuase of the west trying to control there oil resources know the global islamic movements have spread over into surrounding regions which is casuing other muslims problems.

Before the Americans decided to get involved in the middle east the average middle easterner didn't even know that a country called America even existed.

Funny thing is how stupid people are. The more the west has been going into the middle east the more radical and millitant the people are becomming. Look at Iraq a country with little to no history of having terrorism is know has the highest concetration of terroris attacks commited in the arab world.

people just don't learn. You would think that countries would get the hint and stop doing stuff that encourages this behaviour in the locals and yet they continue doing stuff which makes more terrorist.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
What about their role in US politics? No one has asked why the US has not built a new refinery since 1976, or why Prince Bandar was allowed to race his winning horse in the Kentucky Derby in 2002, when there were serious questions about his financing of the 9-11 terrorists, especially when his horse-raising "hobby" could have figured into the movement of large amounts of US currency in and out of the states.

I think you're confusing Arab governments as representives of Muslims. When Arabs leaders do stuff or "manipulate" America they do it for themselves not for other muslims or Arab citizens.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
No one has questioned the fact that the "Key-8" chain of gas stations in the USA has the Emir of Kuwait for its majority stockholder.

Once again that does not benifit muslims but a certain wealthy arab leader.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Or the way that various muslim states are having a large say in how we police our own borders and ports . . .

Once again that's Arab leaders doint things to benifit either themselves or Arabs. No leader from example... Saudi Arabia has ever said let Bangladeshi muslims come into America the most they will ever say is let Arabs in or Let Saudi's into your country.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
What about the leaders of Muslim states? Everyone has posted about the evil Omert; but no mention of Assad or Amen-ajad.

Assad doesn't control a muslim state. Syria is a secular nationalist country based around the concept of Pan-Arab nationalism through the Syrian Baath party.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Let's see, several people post about how Jews target muslims; yet not a sentence about car bombs, taking hostages off buses, or suicide bombings of synagogues.

Jews kill people too:

Let me demonstrate the power of jewish control in American Media :

Jewish militant faces bomb trial

A militant Jewish activist is to stand trial for an alleged plot to bomb a Los Angeles mosque and the office of an Arab-American congressman.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Thats is true control and power. I can guarantee if any other person had tried to kill/blow-up an American congressmen it would have been national news in America playing 24 hours a day for weeks and weeks and yet for some reason American media did not mention this major news even once.

Interesting Take on your last post.

Some have simply written off Rubin and Krugel’s deaths as the deserved end to lives of controversy. But the point isn’t whether Krugel and Rubin were the “terrorists” they’ve been labeled, but rather that prominent Jews in federal custody have a curious habit of dying under mysterious circumstances. In a time when liberal organizations such as the ACLU and Amnesty International devote an inordinate amount of energy to defending the “rights” of Islamic terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, one would think that Jewish “extremists” would garner as much concern. But the overriding attitude has been one of silence, dismissal, and even contempt.
www.theconservativevoice.com...

Semper

iqonx,
Nice rebut!
I would like to place my 2 cents worth:

Dhimmi is not an Islamic concept but an arab concept which was created to deal with all those people that came under it's rule

Since you claim that the Ghimmi status laws are Arab and not Islamic I will counter your claims as follows:
Dhimmi status was imposed by some of the sultans of the Ottoman empire who were Turks and are NOT Arabs but are Muslims. This is also true for the Persians under shiite rule which considered all non-Muslims as unclean and therefore enforced apartheid laws. Persians (Iranians) are not Arabs but are Muslims.

The outlying similarity in these cases were that they were all Muslims. Therefore I do not accept your arguement on this matter.

Regarding your rebuttal to the autocratic nature of the Arab world. You blame the autocratic nature of the Arab world on the British you say

the will of the muslims in that region who anted to rejoin there countries under a single leader chosen by them

I rebut by saying that Islamic rulers were never democratic but rather passed on within the Sultans family. This is true for nearly all of the Islamic entities up to the 20th century. There was no reason why this would change after WWI. Moreover if the ottoman empire was not dismantled the Ottoman legacy would have continued.
If the Arabs would have constructed a Pan-Arab state it would have been ruled by an Arab not through democracy, but autocracy or oligarchy. Any which way we would have had a similar result.
when I said

All the above suits the Islamic world PERFECTLY

I meant that since facsism requires autocratic rule and a high level of 'nationalism' (ethnocentrism, jingoism) or in this case also religious supremism (as can be seem in the Dhimmi status laws). Fascism fits Islamic nations well.
You claim that Indonesia and Pakistan (largest Islamic countries) are Democratic which is a good arguement.
I say to that that Pakistan's Musharaf gained his authority through a milittary coup so it is not exactly democratic and Indonasia although may be democratic it represents only 20% of the Islamic world.
It is irrelevant if the Muslim countries have their own individual laws. A VAST majority of the Islamic countries host the two traits required to define it facist (as defined above).
Maybe Islam does not advocate autocracies or extreme ethnocentrism, but historic and modern evidence supports this.
Islam may be a religion of peace but today's interpretation of Islam by Islamic nations tend to promote facism which makes those individuals, governments and parties ISLAMOFACISTS.

iqonx,
You claim that the Wests behavior is what is fueling terrorism. That is a lame excuse. You do not see Jewish or Christian suicide bombers but there are a HELL of a lot of Muslim suicide bombers. As far as I recall the middle east is not entirely Muslim yet only Muslims engage in this curious behavior.
The radical interpretation of Islam promotes terrorism regardless of what the West does. Pan-Arabism and fundamentalist Islam are bigotted in their nature and is the root of the troubles we are seeing today.
The fact that the existance of Israel is unbearable to both Pan-Arabists and Fundamental Muslim is proof of this. In peace Israel can assist the entire Arab world with the breadth of their advancement, medicine and knowledge yet all that these extremists see is their Islamic pride hurt with the existance of the speck of a land under Jewish rule. They would rather have the entire middle east in constant conflict rather than accept Israel. Under this condition Israel, being the ONLY Jewish country on earth, has no reason but to defend itself.

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
iqonx,
You claim that the Wests behavior is what is fueling terrorism. That is a lame excuse. You do not see Jewish or Christian suicide bombers but there are a HELL of a lot of Muslim suicide bombers.

I saw plenty of Jewish Bombers last month what are you talking about. The fact that they can strap a plane onto them and just drop bombs from a safe distance rather then strapping a bomb pack onto themselves and walking into a crowd doesn't make them any less cowardly then a suicide bomber. There are a hell of a lot of Palestinian bombers only because they have been opressed to the point where they cannot have a normal army/air force otherwise Im sure they would have been doing the same thing as the israelis and bombed from 20,000 feet too.


You keep trying to make israel seem like they hold the higher moral ground but they are still at the same level as those they claim are terrorists.

posted by ThePieMaN

I saw plenty of Jewish Bombers last month what are you talking about. The fact that they can strap a plane onto them and just drop bombs from a safe distance rather then strapping a bomb pack onto themselves and walking into a crowd doesn't make them any less cowardly then a suicide bomber. There are a hell of a lot of Palestinian bombers only because they have been opressed to the point where they cannot have a normal army/air force otherwise Im sure they would have been doing the same thing as the israelis and bombed from 20,000 feet too. You keep trying to make israel seem like they hold the higher moral ground but they are still at the same level as those they claim are terrorists.

Ah, life can be vexatious. There are many isolated peoples around the world. The Timels of Sri Lanka come quickly to mind. We all know of the Armenians of old Turkey who were victims of genocide in the 1920s. We are talking every day about the Kurds who are split between Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. How those people long for an independent Kurdistan.

After 2004's Boxing Day tsunami we learned about the people of Aceh, not ever a pronounceable word in English. We know of the Kashmiri, and some of us have heard of the Baluchi’s who live in SE Iran and W Pakistan, and who would like a country of their own. Baluchistan.

In 2006,the US Special Forces are helping the Philippine Government quash the centuries old resistance of the Moros who live in Mindanao. Catholic Philippines does not tolerate well the Muslim Moros. Canada has come to some terms with its surviving Native Peoples. Mexico still deals harshly with its pure Indians who live near the southern border with Guatemala. This is true almost anywhere in the world. Euro-types often own the means of production or the land, and impose their will on the natives.

So, the Israelites, the Hebrew people, or the modern day Jews, are not alone in the world of distinct minorities. Jews have not enjoyed but have endured a love-hate relationship with Christians of all flavors. Today the Jewish people who live in Israel find their strongest supporters in the so-called Evangelicals of the United States. A sect that takes the Holy Bible to be literal. If is says Jesus will return in a cloud, then you better get your rain gear ready! If it says Jesus will rule the Earth for 1000 years, then hold a grand judgment day, then you can count on it. If Jesus says he will make the true believers magistrates over their fellow men, to rule them, then you better learn how to genuflect to your Evangelical neighbor. Yes, that is also in Revelations, that the saved will rule the unsaved. Many of those Tim Lehaye fans are looking forward to that day!

I think an earlier poster noted that the Muslims did not bother anyone outside their own territory until the US took over in the Brits and French shoes post War 2. If we can see when and where this current brouhaha began, maybe we can discuss rationally how to end it. That is, unless you find in to your liking and advantage to continue it indefinitely.

As much as I would like to see and end to the Palestinian problem, I'm not so sure there is an honorable way to end it. The Palestinians are not going to simply role over and acquiesce to Israel incorporating the occupied territories into Israel. At least not as long as other Arabic/Muslim nations continue to fund them and encourage continued resistance. In the end it may be necessary for Israel to go to war with Syria just to put an end to their meddling. That will not alleviate the plight of the Palestinians, but it would probably put an end to their armed resistance and allow Israel to formally annex the occupied territories. Nothing less than near complete annexation/incorporation will ever satisfy the Israelis. Whether the Palestinians like it or not they will, in the end, either move away or become Israelis.

Many of you will probably condemn this post and my thinking concerning the Palestinian "problem," and perhaps that criticism will be justified, but I am a realist, not an idealist and I don't see any viable alternatives. The Palestinians are going to go the way of the American Indians in my opinion. Sad if you are a Palestinian, but the world doesn't really care and will not do anything to stop it. One complete generation afterwards the world will have largely forgotten all about them.

posted by Astronomer70

As much as I would like to see and end to the Palestinian problem, I'm not so sure there is an honorable way to end it. In the end it may be necessary for Israel to go to war with Syria just to put an end to their meddling. [Edited by Don W]

I have more to say later, but stop a minute Mr A70. If the IDF cannot whip the Hezbollah below the Latani River, how can they whip Syria? Just as the world has learned the US cannot whip the rag-tag insurgents in Iraq, so the world knows the IDF cannot whip the rag-tag guerillas in the south of Lebanon. Poor planning on the part of the US and the Israelis has revealed the weaknesses of both so-called Super Powers. IDF being the min-Super Power of the ME before the 34 days of blunder and plunder.

That will not alleviate the plight of the Palestinians, but it would probably put an end to their armed resistance and allow Israel to formally annex the occupied territories. Nothing less than near complete annexation or incorporation will ever satisfy the Israelis. Whether the Palestinians like it or not they will, in the end, either move away or become Israelis.

Demographics. That is the underlying motive behind Sharon’s decision to get out of Gaza as step one of his plan to keep the 200 settlements on the West Bank and abandon the discombobulated remaining territory to the Palestinians. The Arabs who live in Israel and are Israeli citizens, about 15%, are growing at a much faster rate than the Jewish population.

This was the real reason the Israelis let 1,000,000 Russians in. Anyone in Russia would say he was Jewish was welcomed. It was a ploy to off-set the growing Arab population. Sharon determined to do it unilaterally for 2 reasons. 1) it denigrates the PA. He minimizes the formal Palestinian government. 2) neither the PA nor any Palestinian would consent to his scheme under any circumstances, anyway.

The Palestinians are going to go the way of the American Indians in my opinion. Sad if you are a Palestinian, but the world doesn't really care and will not do anything to stop it. One complete generation afterwards the world will have largely forgotten all about them.

Your foreboding A70, is well founded and your bleak vision of the future justified. IMO it is progressing that way because it may fit into what some commentators say is the real US policy in the Middle East. Turmoil. That the US wants to keep easy Western access to Persian Gulf oil. I know we only import 20% ourselves but we want to “run” the distribution of PG oil around the world. It is our “ace in the hole” for a future but certain China-Taiwan stand off.

Back to Palestine. How to resolve the issue. Start with 1967. Disregard all the past, as it is just a he said she said enterprise. Why or how it came to be is irrelevant except for historians. And demagogues. Israel must give all the West Bank, the Gaza and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. All settlements must be removed. A grade separated highway to Gaza must be constructed to allow passage from the WB to Gaza free of Israeli interference.

The borders must be tweaked a bit to make for easier defining and patrolling by an outside force, probably the US but maybe not. Jewish access to the West Wall (Wailing Wall) must be absolute. The new Palestinian state must be an Arms Free Zone. Yes, police would be armed as normal police are, but even there, I’d advise sharp limits on what we love to call SWAT squads in America. Americans beware! More civilized people do not have much use for such heavy armament. Oops, an aside. Resume.

Right of return. The 200,000 Palestinians who were forced out of Israel since 1948 would no doubt, like to return and reclaim the property taken from them by force or intimidation. This cannot happen. Too much time has passed. It is my belief this would be a very good quid-pro-quo to end the Dispute on. I do think the US - as the behind the scenes causa bella - should do a Nine Eleven Event compensation scheme for those who lost property or their heirs. Perhaps pay a minimum of $250,000 and a maximum of $1,000,000, based on current valuations. Those who participate would sign off on all claims. Those who don’t are out of luck. They can take their memories to their graves. Time passed them by.

Israel can keep its arms but the US has to stop paying. The US should give “un-earmarked” money to the Palestinians on a declining scale, over a 20 years period. This would make it possible for them to make a life for themselves in their own image.

The outside force would patrol the border for 10 or 20 years, or until both sides asked to have the force withdrawn. However much the US spent on this plan, it is trivial compared to the amounts we spend not to end this Dispute. Like it or not, this Dispute is one of the 3 or 4 issues that fuel the Muslims disdain for the West. The underlying causes of the Nine Eleven Event. And so much more.

The beauty of this plan is it is entirely within the United States capacity to do it, most anytime we decide to do it.


[edit on 9/4/2006 by donwhite]

donwhite. Those ideas you just outlined are, in and of themselves, wonderful ones and could be successfully implemented by all sides involved...save for one small problem. The corruption rampant on all sides of the conflict.

The people involved, at least at this moment, are far too entrenched in their own hatreds and agenda-driven politics. Be they oil based, religion based, or just plain hatred based politics.

This is why Israel needs a PM worthy of the mantle of a Moshe Dyan, or Menachem Begin. This is why the Arabs need a leader that can assume the mantle left empty by the assassination of Anwar Sadat. These were men whom the rest would at least listen to. This is why the US needs a President of the stature of a Roosevelt, either one, or a Reagan.

Because love them or hate them, these men had the strength of character and the charisma to make people listen and watch.

Unless, and until, leaders of this stature emerge from whereever they are kept in storage, the morrase that is the ME will continue unabated far into the foreseeable future.

Until people are there who can implement your plans, they will remain just that good plans with no one worthy enough to implement them.

The people of the region are for the most part heirs to incredible cultural and historical legacies that I for one would mourn to see destroyed in this continuous cycle of war. It is a sad thing that their leaders continue to be so unworthy of them.

[edit on 4-9-2006 by seagull]

posted by seagull

Those ideas are wonderful ones and could be successfully implemented by all sides involved . . save for one small problem. The corruption rampant on all sides of the conflict. [Edited by Don W]

Yes, it is true, there is rampant corruption. But, alas, when was that not so? Good leaders make progress despite this permanent condition of political life. Sometimes we do well despite ourselves.

The people involved are entrenched in their own hatreds and agenda driven politics. This is why Israel needs a PM worthy of the mantle of a Dyan or Begin. This is why the Arabs need a leader that can assume the mantle left empty by the assassination of Sadat.

Where do leaders come from? To answer my own question, from the most unexpected places. See my footnote below. Luck. Luck plays a major role in leadership. How else can you explain how lucky the US was that George Washington lived in Virginia in the latter half of the 18th century? He had the ambition to lead the Revolutionary Army. He led the Army when no one else could have or would have. Surviving the winter of ‘77-‘78. The Battle of Yorktown, and the inestimable contribution of the French. Then, he withdrew. Only to come back to preside over the 1787 Convention in Philadelphia. Then to become our first president. And then, to depart from power, pomp and ceremony, after 2 terms, which prompted King George III to say, “He is the greatest man of our time.”

Until there are people who can implement such plans, they will remain just that good plans with no one to implement them. The people of the region are heirs to incredible cultural and historical legacies that I for one would mourn to see destroyed in this continuous cycle of war. It is a sad thing that their leaders continue to be so unworthy of them. [Edited by Don W]

Of course I was being facetious when I said God made Jews the Chosen People, gave Christians the Messiah and told the Holy Prophet he was the last messenger. It is a strange and wholly unpredictable saga, that if it was not in real life, no one would believe. Maybe the equal to the JFK “magic bullet” conundrum. Insoluble by ordinary mortals.

Example of Origin of Leaders:
Brigadier General Antonio Valero de Bernabe aka The Liberator from Puerto Rico (October 26, 1790 - June 7, 1863), born in Fajardo, Puerto Rico, was a military leader who wanted the independence of Puerto Rico and who believed in the formation of a confederation of Latin American nations.
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 9/4/2006 by donwhite]

Donwhite,

With all respect to your suggested peace plans I need to point out some problems as a person who is actually living it here in the middle east:
1- Regarding the IDFs apparent incapacity to deal with Hezbullah. This is a misconception that for the most part occurred because of the political heads of state. PM Olmert and defense minister Peretz where hesitant and fearful to strike up a full scale conflict and although much devestation was laid on Lebanon Israel was VERY restrainful in light of the fact that this was a WAR. Halutz, the Israeli chief of staff, was found to be unfitting do to his lack of experience in the Army (Halutz is an Air Force general and had no ARMY experience). The blunders with Hezbullah had to do with political problems associated with a politically motivated chief of staff. Furthermore, now that Israel experienced Hezbullah's tactics it can (and will) draw up the necessary plans for the next phase (and there will be one).
2- Demographics: Israeli Arabs consist of just under 20% of the Israeli populace. Although their is a high birth rate among some of these Arabs, there is a decrease in their rates. The religious Jews on the other hand have very high birth rates which offsets the Israeli Arab birthrate. The demographic 'threat' does not come from Israeli Arabs but Palestinian Arabs which have the birth rate of a 'hormonally imbalanced rabbit in heat'. That may have been the reason for the disengagement from Gaza which is very highly populated.
3- The 1 million Russians who were brought in where brought in in the early to mid 90s. Your time table is off by a bit.
4- A general comment regarding you peace proposal, its biggest flaw is that it does not address the ambitions of the Palestinians and their leadership - To replace the Jewish entity with a muslim entity. That is unargueable. The Palestinians NEVER showed that they want peace but they wanted a piece and another piece and yet another. With Hamas at the leadership now there is no way any peace arrangement is possible.
5- The eastern part of the West bank is a strategic to defend Israel from an attack. The distance from the Mediterranian sea to the West bank at its thinnest local is 11 miles (if not kilometers I always forget). This bby all military definitions cannot be defended without making sure that tanks and high tech weapons are not brought into the WEST BANK. Therefore the Jordan valley needs to stay israeli.
6- The holiest Jewish site is not the wailing wall but the domb of the rock which is where the holy temple was situated. If you wish to address an issue that is in the core of the conflict this needs to be resolved.
7- Although I agree with Reparations to refugees who were displaced by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict some issues need to be resolved. The Palestinians claim that between 600,000-700,000 refugees were displaced not 200,000. This is a 3 fold discrepancy. In addition to 600,000-700,000 Palestinian refugees there were over 600,000 Jewish refugees who fleed Arab/Muslim lands. This issue needs to be addressed as well. I do not think that the US should foot the bill but Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lybia and all Arab states who were involved in the conflict. The main reason the conflict got 'ugly' was because the Arabs rejected the partition plan and kept the refugees that they created in a state of limbo. Its not like the Arabs do not have the money.
8- The plan is not within the US capacity because it will never work. The Palestinians and their patrons will sabotage it at every turn.

posted by JudahMaccabbi

posted by Iqonx
Dhimmi is not an Islamic concept but an arab concept created to deal with [non-Arabic] people that came under it's rule . . [Edited by Don W]

“ . . claim the “Dhimmi” status laws are Arab and not Islamic I will counter as follows: Dhimmi status was imposed by some of the sultans of the Ottoman empire who were Turks and are NOT Arabs but are Muslims. This is also true for the Persians under Shiite rule which considered all non-Muslims as unclean and therefore enforced Dhimmi. Persians (Iranians) are not Arabs but are Muslims. [Edited by Don W]

Just yesterday, I heard a critic of our ME policy remark that there is not a genetic difference between Iranians and other Middle Easterners. He said there is no DNA difference. He also offered it was partly due to recalling the glory of ancient Persia that causes so many Farsi speakers to claim not to be Arabs.

I say Islamic rulers were never democratic but rather passed [power] on within the family. There was no reason why this would change after WWI. If the Ottoman empire was not dismantled the Ottoman legacy would have continued. If the Arabs would have constructed a Pan-Arab state it would have been ruled by an Arab not democratically, but autocratically or by oligarchies.

Yes, you are right, J/M. But we have learned that what people prize more than the right to cast a ballot (which in Florida might not have counted in 2000 or Ohio in 2004) is the right to security, to engage in enterprise, to have a system of local justice that is fair and predictable. Given the choice of chaos with the vote or security without the vote, even American would choose the latter. IMO.

Frankly, J/M, on the issue of comparing fascism to today’s Islamic world, I am less than impressed. I think you are making too much of a stretch. The leap from Nazism to Islam is too much for me.

I say Pakistan's Musharaf gained his authority through a military coup so it is not exactly democratic It is irrelevant if the Muslim countries have their own individual laws. A VAST majority of the Islamic countries host the two traits required to define it fascist (as defined above). Maybe Islam does not advocate autocracies or extreme ethnocentrism, but historic and modern evidence [does not] supports this. [Edited by Don W]

It has long suited American foreign policy to have a military dictator we call “president” in power not only in Pakistan, but in many other countries. I suppose you could write it off to “real politick” as in Machiavelli . Unfortunately the American people are not so sophisticated, and like me, cannot spell Machiavelli and tend to believe our official protestations of promoting democracy. Which makes us as a people vulnerable to manipulation by wiser and more determined people around the world. But that is our fault, not theirs.


[edit on 9/4/2006 by donwhite]

Donwhite while I believe your broad plan has merit I can't see any of the parties involved adopting it for a variety of reasons. Let me list just two of those reasons.

(1) What do the Israelis do with the former Israeli occupants of the settlements if they simply abandon them? I don't know how many people would be involved, but I don't think Israel has the capacity to just absorb them back into the original borders. There are so damn many of them that some people would almost have to be shipped out of the country--and they wouldn't go peacefully either.

(2) As the saying goes, "the devil is in the details," and the people necessary to implement such a broad plan can't see the forest for the trees in the way. Israel has endured so many attacks they are almost paranoid on the issue of state security. It is extremely difficult to ever imagine the Israelis supporting any plan that did not guarantee such, even though the physical parameters of the area all but totally preclude the security they want. Of necessity (to the Israelis) any Palestinian state that was created would have to be a sovereign state in name only. They could not be allowed the means to defend themselves or prevent aggressive incursions into their state. The Palestinians are just as paranoid concerning security as the Israelis. To satisfy their concerns Israel would have to be mostly disarmed and that just isn't in the cards.

If someone can figure out a way around the above without turning the entire area into some sort of "international" territory, then mayby a peace plan could be made to work. If not, then the disparity of strength between the Israelis and the Palestinians will ultimately decide the issue. I'm sorry to seem so negative about the situation, but I'm at a loss to see workable alternatives.

DonWhite,

Frankly, J/M, on the issue of comparing fascism to today’s Islamic world, I am less than impressed. I think you are making too much of a stretch. The leap from Nazism to Islam is too much for me.

That is your problem - You cannot separate Naziism (which was MUCH WORST than fascism) from fascism.

Naziism is fascism but facsism is not Nazism.

Facism is just an autocratic (oligocratic would fit too) and highly enthnocentric (racist, religious supremist, jingoist is all the same).

ERGO, ISLAMOFASCIST.

If Islam cannot tolerate a Jewish presence in the middle east (HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, Hezbullah, Al-qaida, Iran), cannot tolerate a Christian presence in the middle east (Al-qaida) and hates the west then those individuals and their supporters are facsists.

posted by Astronomer70

I believe your plan has merit I can't see any of the parties involved adopting it for a variety of reasons. Let me list just two of those reasons.

(1) What do the Israelis do with the former Israeli occupants of the settlements if they simply abandon them? I don't know how many people would be involved, but I don't think Israel has the capacity to just absorb them back into the original borders. [Edited by Don W]

There are about 300,000 settlers. There are 1.2 million Arabs in Gaza. Frankly, as the Palestinians have suffered because of failed Israeli/US policies, so also the settlers must suffer. OTOH, the settlers knew from day 1 they were illegal. And I am under the impression the Israeli govt gave them money to buy the houses. If the settlers were smart - as in the Sinai peace agreement of 1978, they knew or should have known one day they would have to be removed in the furtherance of national policy. Even if the US added those people to the Palestinians for the Nine Eleven Event type settlement, it would be cheap for us in the long haul.

(2) As the saying goes, "the devil is in the details," and the people necessary to implement such a broad plan can't see the forest for the trees. Israel has endured so many attacks they are almost paranoid on the issue of state security. It is extremely difficult to ever imagine the Israelis supporting any plan that did not guarantee such . .

Rabin and his supporters did not couch the plan that way. Offering perfect security. It was instead promoted as “land for peace.” We should all know by today there is no such thing as perfect security. Except for those at Forest Lawn. Ir we wait for perfection, then we’re joining the Bush43 Gang of Four in a perpetual war. Instead of presidential elections, we’ll be choosing commander in chief as in Rome when Julius Caesar was voted Dictator by the Senate.

Of necessity any Palestinian state that was created would have to be a sovereign state in name only. They could not be allowed the means to defend themselves or prevent aggressive incursions into their state. The Palestinians are just as paranoid concerning security as the Israelis. To satisfy their concerns Israel would have to be mostly disarmed and that just isn't in the cards.

This is the purpose of the 15,000 to 20,000 Army guards patrolling the border between Israel and New Palestine. I envisage a 100 meters wide No Weapons Zone along the border. The Patrol is authorised, indeed, encouraged, to shoot to kill anyone in that zone with a weapon. So you ask, what about rockets? This is a product of general popular discontent. If the Palestinians have a system they believe offers them a better chance at the good life, they will self-police. No one can catch guerillas when the local populace supports and harbors them. Just ask our Vietnam boys. Or our Iraqi boys.

“ . . maybe a peace plan could be made to work. If not, then the disparity of strength between the Israelis and the Palestinians will ultimately decide the issue. I'm sorry to seem so negative about the situation,

Israel is the loose cannon when you talk Armageddon. Everyone who ought to know says Israel has 50 to 300 nuclear bombs. Supposedly, Israel threatened Egypt with blowing up the Aswan Dam if the Egyptian army threatened the territory of Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

That raises another issue. At some point in the future, we need a world where all nations feel free to give up their nuclear weapons, including Israel and the United States. The ABC Treaty is the one where Ageratina, Brazil and Chile pledged to keep the continent of South America a nuclear free zone. Japan is one which the US keeps trying to change. South Korea is not but could be. We really need to get a handle on our own government.

Time is running out.



[edit on 9/4/2006 by donwhite]