PDA

View Full Version : Are today's Muslims barbaric?


fab
March 23, 2004, 05:51 PM
As days go by, I am beginning to subscribe to this view. Take a look at our wonderful repertoire:

Terrorism/Suicide Bombings
Honour Killings
Female circumcision
Acid Throwing
No of Freedom of Speech
Religious Fundamentalism
Genocide
Internal squabbling
Highest level of corruption

By the actions of so many Muslims, is it a wonder that the rest of the world think Islam is a dangerous religion? If you go to a mosque and try to question these things to 'experts' they blame it all on the West. Dark Ages.

Nasif
March 23, 2004, 06:10 PM
Standing with a signboard called "I am Muslim" doesn't make anyone muslim. Islam today in middle east has nothing to do with real Islam.

Shubho
March 23, 2004, 06:40 PM
this is not a middle eastern problem. this is a problem with all muslims all over the world. pakistan isn't in the middle east, yet they perpetrated genocide. bangladesh isn't in the middle east, yet look at the state of affairs there. nigeria isn't part of the middle east, and look at what's going on there. and what about indonesia? and the philippines?

generally, we muslims are all talk. "pray five times a day, wage jihad, denounce other religions as bad, and you'll be in heaven with 72 virgins servicing you 'till you run outta steam." less art, and more method, i say.

Nasif
March 23, 2004, 07:00 PM
When I said middle east I didn't mean only middle eastern countries. I meant middle east as an islamic model. Theirs is the furthest from the truth.

Ofcourse the current state of islam is a global epidemic. Plagued by lack of education and "mollah-ism". 99% of muslims (my assumption) don't know what it really is their religion and what really is in Quran. They put their faith in "huzurs" and "imams", who lectures them on "hoors", lavish heavens. Common people is blinded by clergy (similar to christian middle age) and their barbaric philosophy. This has nothing to with real Islam or Quran.

Only way I see for people to get out of this self-destructing loop is to increase literacy (and I don't meant literacy to be only able to sign your name).

Ockey
March 23, 2004, 07:33 PM
Increased literacy is all well and good and is probably the solution to most of the problems in third world countries but one really has to examine why things have gotten to where they are in mostly Muslim countries. Does anyone have any theories that they have read about or that they have formulated?

One theory that I'd like to propose is that the oldest Muslim cultures in the Middle East are what they are today because centuries ago they decided to close themselves off to other cultures and have formed a very puritanical form of Islam either for reason's of survival or for recognition. This form of Islam has transpired into intolerance and discrimination and has flourished till this day mainly because [start edit] other Muslims have not argued against it. The reasons being a) the geographic location of the Middle East and its proximity to the three holiest Islamic cities b) Arabic is a language spoken by the people of the ME and the Quran is written in Arabic and hence they are perceived to have the proper interpretation of the Book c) the financial leverage that the Arab nations have had of late on other Muslim nations after the discovery of huge reserves of oil. [end edit]

As for the other parts of the world, such as Africa, South and East Asia, where Islam was spread mostly through conquest, these nations have recently been given independence from imperialism and if given time, they will get their affairs in order. Having said that, a lot of the damage has been done by the Islamic teachings spread from the Middle East; and given the rate of illetaracy in the population Islam spread at it was preached by the Mullas. Because Islam is perceived to be a religion that is protected by God and cannot be changed, no one has really challanged the different schools of thoughts that are out there. Everyone believes their interpretation of Islam is right.


[Edited on 24-3-2004 by Ockey]

fab
March 23, 2004, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by nasif
Only way I see for people to get out of this self-destructing loop is to increase literacy (and I don't meant literacy to be only able to sign your name).

Osama is a qualified engineer. His right hand man is a physician. They sound pretty literate to me!

Anyhow, I think Ockey has got it right - "Everyone believes their interpretation of Islam is right." and the fact that our scriptures are so vague doesn't help much either.

Nasif
March 23, 2004, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by fab
Osama is a qualified engineer. His right hand man is a physician. They sound pretty literate to me!


I was talking about common people. The ones who are duped. Osama and his gang doesn't count. These are thugs and extremists. Every society has them.

Zobair
March 23, 2004, 10:19 PM
the "Muslim" world is in crisis...serious crisis :( its fragmented and due to its sheer size and diversity is finding it hard to come to terms with its common heritage...there is lack of Muslim role models...we need visionary Muslim leaders who can rise above the pettiness and squabbling and the ignorance that is spread all throught out the Muslim Ummah and show us the way...until then we are unfortunately stuck with the Osama(s) and the rest...we need to pull together and get our voices heard (as Muslims) when other "Muslims" put the blame on "the West". We need to reach out where ever we are and set good examples as Muslims and human beings. Things will change for the better Inshallah!

acker
March 23, 2004, 11:30 PM
To quote nasif
"Common people is blinded by clergy (similar to christian middle age) and their barbaric philosophy. This has nothing to with real Islam or Quran. "

Nasif unfortunately many "common" westerners in the U.S , Canada , Australia , England , etc are still being taken for a ride by fast talking evangelist fundamental christian preacher's like Jim & Tammy Baker , Creflo Dollar , Jimmy Swagart , Billy Graham etc
And politicians like GW Bush , Tony Blair & John Howard etc unfortunately try to shape policy's to appease them.

Unknown
March 24, 2004, 08:07 AM
I think not all the blame goes to Muslims. think about it this way, due to opression, occupation, indirect or otherwise, many of these countries have developed these so called terrorists. Its a two sided thing.

Literacy will help, but lets look at the root of the matter. Most of these countries spend more on buying weapons, than on education. The US and UK have the same policy, they would rather spend more funds (which I add is public taxes) on weapons and so called "self defence" than on public health per say.

When these "Developed Countries" give aid, in reality they are just fueling these third world countries with more weapons for their war-mongering, in return for food. I mean have you realised how many African countries suffer from famine? They can grow crops, but most of their harvest they have to export to pay off their debts!

If you analyse those countries, most of them spend their funds for war than on education... how can they become literate? The only thing they learn is to use an AK.

As for barbaricness, do you fail to see how barbaric the west and so called developed countries are?

History is witness to the fact that it was US who obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki (how many innocent civillians do you think died)? Then Vietnam War...

"In America's war on Vietnam, the US forces sprayed 72 million litres of chemicals on areas of south Vietnam from 1961 to 1971. The chemicals, which included Agent Orange contaminated with Dioxin, caused many thousands of deaths and abnormal births. Today in Vietnam there are estimated to be nearly one million victims of Agent Orange, and the effects are going into the third generation."

Who could be more barbaric? There was once Brittish imperialism, and now there is the American imperialism.

The fact is as long as we are opressed and supressed, nothing will become of us.



[Edited on 24-3-2004 by Unknown]

Unknown
March 25, 2004, 06:14 AM
"They are barbaric, that argument doesnot justify Muslim barbarism"

I did not try to justify Muslim barbarism.

oracle
March 25, 2004, 08:59 AM
'Lord of the Ring' Movies unfortunatly describe the Darkest moment of Islam accuratly. It is very subtle but 'Lord of the Ring' movies true darkside is Islam. As they fight power of one and try to save middle earth from power of one. Power of one is Islam, King soroman is King Solomon of ottoman Empire and middle earth is Middle East. Hobbits are british, Smigles are indians. Anyway there will be dispute about that comparisons. Because it is very subtle.


Where did you read this? Interested to read more.

oracle
March 25, 2004, 10:28 AM
Sage, kindly review these 2 remarks which I would like to dispute. I think you are putting way too much importance on the mughal empire. They were just another despotic dynasty in Asia along with dynasties in Japan, China and Persia. All in decline by the time the Europeans were out searching foe colonies.


Fall of Indian Subcontinent is the Major blow for Ottoman Empire




After the fall of Mughol It started the time of the Kings which is European colonial period


I see the turk/mongol connection but how can the otoman empire be equated with the Mughals, just because of common ancestry and Islam?

Anyway, really woke up me up in a rather dull morning. I loved your comparison between the trilogy and this new Orientalism theory. Please continue.:)

Zobair
March 25, 2004, 11:39 AM
The other day I was attending a talk given by a Harvard research fellow in Islamic studies ( a Muslim convert) and he said the opposite. I believe his PhD work is in Sharia. He felt that there was growing awareness about Islam "as a way of life" particularly in the West where he felt Islam was a solution to the maladies that plague the society here...very relevant in other words.


Islam has lost the purpose in this world. Islam is in decline.

fab
March 25, 2004, 06:48 PM
Let me know what you think Dude, have you read the books? Although you make a very interesting comparison, there are some factual errors in what you said. First Gollum/Smeagol is NOT meant to portray Gandhi! hahaha! There are no 'race' of Smeagols. He used to be a hobbit, but the ring turned him into an evil creature..

Second, the army of Mordor are Orcs, Trolls, Uruks. The Easterlings (the middle eastern type race) are their allies. Sauron and Sarumon did not create the Easterlings, and nor are they FROM Mordor.

Third, Middle Earth is not the Middle East. Middle Earth is inhabited by a number of different races (Elves, Hobbits, Humans). It is most likely the Middle East is where the Easterlings are from..

On the surface, his story does seem quite, for a want of a better word, 'racially stereotypical' (i do not want to use the word 'racist' ) , and the names and words he uses could mean anything if you do not read all the accompanying books. E.G. I thought Nazgul COULD mean Nazi Moghul. But it turns out from his _Guide to Names in The Lord of the Rings_ (A Tolkien Compass, p. 172):
"Ring-wraiths. This is a translation of the Black Speech Nazgu^l, from nazg 'ring' and gu^l, any one of the major invisible servants of Sauron dominated entirely by his will.". But then again, all the words from the 'Black Speech' sound uncannily like Turkish/Arabic/Persian to me.. Ergh.. i dunno i'm confused.

If you wanna find out more about the LOTR and make a plausible comparison, first read the books(!!) and also check out rec.arts.books.tolkien where you'll find a lot of LOTR nutters debating it out. :)

Oracle - you may like to check out the following (very interesting) article - J.R.R. Tolkien -- enemy of progress (http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/12/17/tolkien_brin/index.html)

fab
March 25, 2004, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by pompous
He felt that there was growing awareness about Islam "as a way of life" particularly in the West where he felt Islam was a solution to the maladies that plague the society here...very relevant in other words.
What about the maladies of the Islamic world which Islamic Shariah has not been able to stamp out (in fact it seems to breed it quite nicely!)? Out of interest, what type of Western maladies is he talking about? I dunno about you, but I'd rather live in a society that has a high divorce rate, teenage pregnancy and gay marriages than a one with honour killings, acid throwing, no freedom of speech and corruption (hence why I am living in a Western country).

Zunaid
March 25, 2004, 07:25 PM
Yeah, what she said. Read the books first.

Couple of comments:

Tolkien by profession was a philologist as well as a Hebrew scholar. He was one of the translators of The Jerusalem Bible and was initimately familiar with Egyptian mythology.

Tolkien himself said:

The Numenorians of Gondor were proud, and archaic, and I think are best pictured in (say) Egyptian terms. In many way they resembled 'Egyptians' - the love of, and power to construct, the gigantic and massive. And in their great interest in ancestory and in tombs. (But not of course in 'theology': in which respect they were Hebraic and even more puritan - but this would take long to set out: to explain indeed why there is practically no overt 'religion', or rather religious acts or places or ceremonies among the 'good' or anti-Sauron peoples). I think the crown if Gondor was very tall, like that of Egypt, not set straight back but at an angle.


That and his interest in Hebrew and Semitic language does go a long way towards explaining his choice of names and his creation of the various languages (he was also an amateur linguist).

Consider Gollum: The Golem is a figure in Jewish folk-lore. It is a robot-like entity, usually without powers of speech much like Tolkien's Gollum.

Here's an interesting link: >>> link <<<< (http://my.ort.org.il/tolkien/gandalf/html/influences.html)

Yes, Fab - Tolkien was also a luddite.

Now on to Ottoman empire and how far it stretched. Even at it's largest the Ottoman empire never extended further east than present day Iraq.

Here are some interesting maps: >>>> link <<<< (http://www.naqshbandi.org/ottomans/maps/default.htm)

Islam in South East Asia was spread not by any Ottoman connection but by traders and merchants (many of Indian origin). The Europeans and Islam arrived in South East Asia around the same time. Previously there was a mix of indigenous/animistic and variants of Hinduism and Buddhism. The latter two were brought more by missionaries and traders from India and present day Sri Lanka.

For a long time Muslims were a minority in the region until series of upheavals in Java and Sumatra over a two hundred year period saw the rout of the classical Hindu empires and the growth of Islam based entities.

Sumatra, Java and Southern Malaya (West Malaysia) centered around Melacca is where Islam took hold and then eventually spread. I would recommend a reading of the history of the Melccan Kingdom and Tun Perak in particular.

Now Frank Herbert and Dune fans can now discuss the Arabic/Arabic Sounding words he used. Hail Muad'Dib!

Cheers,
Zunaid
Yes, LOTR and Dune Fan.
But you must also read Anthony Scott Card and the Ender's series!

Shubho
March 25, 2004, 10:46 PM
all of this business of drawing parallels between LOTR and the islamic world is hogwash...but funny nonetheless.

i could just as well say that the evil emperor in star wars is mullah omar, and darth vader is osama bin laden. the storm troopers are all those jihadis. the death star is afghanistan...looks like a wreck in the first place, and then is blasted to bits in the end. tatooine is the desert in texas. luke skywalker (the hero) is george w bush. han solo (luke's sidekick) is tony blair. who the f is princess leia? for argument's sake, let's make that the statue of liberty.

that brings us to the major flaw in this theory:

says, darth vader "I am your father, luke"
osama bin laden is g w bush's father?!?!? Well, nothing's impossible. Maybe Barbara Bush was in Bin Laden Senior's harem for a while.

fab
March 25, 2004, 11:07 PM
wouldn't it be the other way around? (palestinian) rebels wanting independence using various (terror) tactics, like blowing up the death (israel) star? OMG I think you've found a link!

acker
March 25, 2004, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by oracle

'Lord of the Ring' Movies unfortunatly describe the Darkest moment of Islam accuratly. It is very subtle but 'Lord of the Ring' movies true darkside is Islam. As they fight power of one and try to save middle earth from power of one. Power of one is Islam, King soroman is King Solomon of ottoman Empire and middle earth is Middle East. Hobbits are british, Smigles are indians. Anyway there will be dispute about that comparisons. Because it is very subtle.


Where did you read this? Interested to read more.

Wrong Oracle , Tolkien wrote the "Lord of the Rings" not long before the 2nd World War. Check out his biography and you will probably come to the realisation that "Moldor" is "Germany" and the "evil one" is Hitler

sage
March 26, 2004, 06:09 AM
As I said It was very subtle analogy. Ordinary or simplistic thinking process would not get it. 'Lord of the Ring' was a fantasy everybody could interpret it in their own way.
:)

[Edited on 26-3-2004 by sage]

sage
March 26, 2004, 09:32 AM
Apnader reading habitter pradorshoni dheke lota kombol boier ekta chutki mone hoi gelo.

Chamoch are zihba er modhe parthokko ta ki zanen?

Chamoch zodi shara din souper modhe dubeo thake tobuo Chamoch buzbe na souper shad ki. Tulonamulok bhabe Zihba ekto choia tei souper ashol shad nite pare.

[Edited on 26-3-2004 by sage]

fab
March 28, 2004, 02:11 AM
Some people's tastebuds don't work properly. These unfortunates get confused about what is hot, what is sweet, what is sour or what is bitter :)

Arnab
March 28, 2004, 02:37 AM
I don't think muslims will ever be able to trump Hitler, Truman or Mao ze dong, in terms of body count.

sage
March 28, 2004, 05:50 AM
:P

Arnab
March 28, 2004, 01:15 PM
Fab, questions:

1. Do you agree that warfare is the ultimate in barbarism?

2. To what extent muslims were engaged in the two world wars we had?

3. How many muslim countries possess lethal atomic weapons?

4. If you also consider gunfare and arms trading barbaric, do muslim countries dominate in the world arms trade? How about manufacturing guns?

[Edited on 28-3-2004 by Arnab]

Ockey
March 28, 2004, 03:09 PM
Arnab,

The retorical question that you have posed is what the most Muslims use to justify why Muslims countries should have nuclear programs.

"3. How many muslim countries possess lethal atomic weapons?"

Perhaps more appropriate questions would be:

Which Muslim country can safeguard thier nuclear weapons and make sure it won't to used annihilate the "Infidels and Zionists" of the West?

Another question is: Can these Muslim nations gaurantee that someone involved in the program won't sell the secrets to the highest bidder? Here is an article that might answer ths question. Link:Pakistani scientist apologises for nuke leaks (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040204/325/el6p8.html)

We can all agree that the Muslim countries that do have nuclear weapons, namely Pakistan and possibly Iran, have unstable governments and if there is sudden shift to the Islamic hard-liners, those weapons will be unaccounted for. Frankly I would feel a lot safer is Muslim nations didn't go about trying to develop nuclear programs.

[Edited on 28-3-2004 by Ockey]

Arnab
March 28, 2004, 05:25 PM
Ockey, there is irony to all this. Muslims didn't use atomic bombs to annihilate more than a hundred thousand civilians in the matter of a blink. That was the most monumental crime or act of terrorism against humanity. Muslims didn't invade America or a western nation, the opposite happened. Muslims didn't invade Vietnam. But you are happy to call muslim states unstable, while keeping mum about the infinitely more barbaric acts the west has inflicted upon themselves and the world. It's a double standard, don't you think?

Objectively, the west has no moral authority to tell the muslim states what should be done or not. They grossly violate their own standards over and over again in massive proportions.

Invading a country or initiate a war under false pretenses was considered the number one, the ultimate crime against peace and humanity in the Nuremburg trials, and based on that the nazi leaders were prosecuted. Now, not only you can get away by doing such a crime, you can joke about it with your docile media.

fab
March 28, 2004, 06:10 PM
Arnab,
The examples you cited are generally pursuits of governments/leaders, not individuals of a society. I am not saying that the Western governments are better than the Islamic governments. I am talking of barbarism at the social level, in which I think Muslims exceed. You might say this is a result of the West screwing around with us for so long. Perhaps religious fundamentalism is a result that, but what about socially ingrained attitudes like corruption, honour killings, acid throwing, NO freedom of speech? Do we blame the West for that too? I just think there's no way we're ever gonna improve if we keep pointing the finger and blame others.

But I do agree that non muslim governments are more barbaric (read: US, China, Russia, Western EU). They spend more money on warfare than health, education and general welfare. What's more despicable is that they MAKE money from extremely poor and crisis ridden countries.

Ockey,
So basically you are saying that only rich countries have a right to defend themselves? btw, mutually assured destruction is good war hindrance. The world would be a better place if NO ONE had WMDs... Why is that so unacceptable to you guys?

Zobair
March 28, 2004, 06:55 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pompous
He felt that there was growing awareness about Islam "as a way of life" particularly in the West where he felt Islam was a solution to the maladies that plague the society here...very relevant in other words.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What about the maladies of the Islamic world which Islamic Shariah has not been able to stamp out (in fact it seems to breed it quite nicely!)? Out of interest, what type of Western maladies is he talking about? I dunno about you, but I'd rather live in a society that has a high divorce rate, teenage pregnancy and gay marriages than a one with honour killings, acid throwing, no freedom of speech and corruption (hence why I am living in a Western country).
----------------------------------

I don't want to live in either actually :) Of all the ills that you mention plague Muslim societies the only one that can be linked to Islam is "honour killing"...the rest are symptomatic of all poor third world counties....wouldn't you agree?!

Arnab
March 28, 2004, 06:59 PM
Well, fab, I don't know how you can differentiate it like that. The western people can be very civilized in their own personal spheres, but they are also implicitly guilty for the barbaric crimes their leaders do. Where do these leaders come from? Muslim countries? No, they're born and raised in the west with western "values".

And in all seriousness, Islam doesn't promote barbarism. In fact, Islam has no specific stance for or against barbarism. Just like any other old school religion, it's pretty vague and philosophically inadequate to apply to our current complex society. Islam cannot elminate barbaric mentalities, because it doesn't even address it!

The only way to eliminate it is ensuring a democratic, civilized education to the people.

It's pretty hard to accomplish though. America, the founder of democracy, lost its track in true democratic education and tradition a long time ago. That's why its leaders have gotten away with such massive crimes.

al Furqaan
April 7, 2004, 03:14 PM
i am also critical of many things that muslims and the islamic world do. but one must realize that they are not acting in the way of the rasool (SAW).

acid throwing is not mentioned in the quran or the hadith and so is haram, harming civilians or even animals or crops (whether at war or in times of peace) are completely against the teachings of islam. i did read one hadith saying that female circumscion was favorable, however remember that many hadith are not authentic. the fact that sex was made by allah to bring pleasure to both adam (AS) and eve leads one to conclude that this practice is wrong.

i don't know what your (all in banglacricket.com) personal beliefs are, but if you claim to be a muslim, know that just because the vast majority of muslims thinks a certain way does not make it right. only authentic teachings of islam are deemed correct.

next i would like to say a few words on my own personal beliefs:

after much thought, it is my sincere belief that at this point of the islam vs. the west conflict, muslims by and large are on the wrong side. to me, the palestinian-israeli conflict is the crux of the issue we face today. it is because of israel's security that the west has supported her in all her wars against the muslims. israel's security has also been the number one influence on american foreign policy affairs in the muslim world. these are the reasons that muslims all over the world range anywhere from distrust of the west to outright hatred.

when one looks at history, he or she sees that in 1947 the UN created israel as a state for jews. palestine was more or less split equally between arabs and jews. we had shared sovereignty of jerusalem, and a chance right off the bat to have a peaceful muslim state right next to the jewish one. what did we (the ummah) do? we declared jihad on israel.

i understand that it is not fair for us to pay for the german nazis mistakes. in reality the entire western world was causing us to pay for all of their anti-semitism which had gone on unabated for 2 millennia. still, we should not have reacted with warfare. we should realize that the jews lived in this land and they were forced out of it. it does not matter that islam is the one true relgion...that does not mean that all of the land is ours and the jews should live as second class citizens. they are just as free to live as they want, as long as they dont harm us. however we didnt choose this islamic path. and this has resulted in most of the misery faced by 1.3 billions muslims for the last 50 years.

i am NOT justifying israel's killing of innocent palestinian civilians, but likewise i cannot support the massacre of jews by suicide bombers. this does not mean that i don't support the self defense of innocent victims. if muslims are unjustly attacked, they should wage war as a last resort. but the same rights should be awarded to jews, christians, and all others. the prophet muhammad (SAW) commanded his followers during his last khutbah: "hurt no one, so that no one may hurt you."

so what do i think will happen? well i think the whole "war on terror" will continue indefinitely. no amount of force will intimidate the terrorists; in fact it will only spawn more. this is the natural way of things.

islamic prophecy tells us that islam will not prevail until jesus (AS) and the mahdi comes and reforms islam. together these 2 will return us to the true form of our religion, and under the banner of the pen will we conquer, not by the sword. the west will never win by use of force and neither will the muslims.

so if we can't do anything to change the situation what should we do? nothing? no, it is true that a few people cannot reform the muslims as a whole, but we can do our best by advocating tolerance and multilateral dialogue. in the end, only allah by his mercy can bless the children of adam (AS) with peace on earth.

al Furqaan
April 7, 2004, 03:17 PM
I also do not support the murder of innocent iraqi and afhgan civilians by american troops, but if u read my last post you will see that ultimately we are to blame.

it is indeed a sad but real part of this world that innocent civilians must die.

Arnab
April 7, 2004, 04:43 PM
when one looks at history, he or she sees that in 1947 the UN created israel as a state for jews. palestine was more or less split equally between arabs and jews. we had shared sovereignty of jerusalem, and a chance right off the bat to have a peaceful muslim state right next to the jewish one. what did we (the ummah) do? we declared jihad on israel.

Wrong history.

Zunaid
April 7, 2004, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Arnab
when one looks at history, he or she sees that in 1947 the UN created israel as a state for jews. palestine was more or less split equally between arabs and jews. we had shared sovereignty of jerusalem, and a chance right off the bat to have a peaceful muslim state right next to the jewish one. what did we (the ummah) do? we declared jihad on israel.

Wrong history.

evidence?

al Furqaan
April 7, 2004, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Arnab

And in all seriousness, Islam doesn't promote barbarism. In fact, Islam has no specific stance for or against barbarism. Just like any other old school religion, it's pretty vague and philosophically inadequate to apply to our current complex society. Islam cannot elminate barbaric mentalities, because it doesn't even address it!



arnab bhai,

if islam doesn't mention barbarism...then it is in incomplete relgion. we know that allah sent islam to finalize the revelations he had been sending to mankind for millennia.

the fact of the matter was that the arabs of jahiliyyah (pre-islamic times of ignorance) were very barbaric. evidence? here it is:

1) they used to drink alcohol profusely
2) they practiced adultery with the zeal that desis follow cricket
3) they practiced pimping which knew no bounds
4) they used to marry their mothers
5) they used to exploit the poor, orphans, and women, mainly widows
6) they employed an illogical method to settle tribal disputes by killing any member of a guilty tribe, regardless of whether that person was innocent or not.
7) they performed the hajj naked
8) they used to drink camel's blood
9) they practiced female infanticide
10) slaves had no rights
11) women had no rights

all of these things are barbaric and islam effectively ended these atrocities.

and how is my 1947 history wrong? as far as i know the UN approved the partition plan but the arabs rejected it. if you can prove me wrong with hard evidence then i will change my views.

al Furqaan
April 7, 2004, 06:17 PM
...i agree with many other things u said such as the hypocrisy in the western world...but i believe there is hypocrisy in the ummah as well. true islam eradicates this hypocrisy. the problem is no countries practice true islam.

Arnab
April 7, 2004, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by Zunaid
evidence?

ORIGIN OF THE CONFLICT IN PALESTINE (1880s- 1920s)

by Arnab

The purpose of the following is to show the origin of the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The conflict is a modern one, beginning in late 1800s (1870s to be more precise). Having studied a lot on the subject recently, I felt I needed to organize my knowledge in an orderly, chronological fashion. This is the first phase of my “history” posts on this highly contentious issue. In this phase, I present mainly facts regarding what happened in the land of Palestine from late 1870s to 1920s. I present these in a “Question and Answer” fashion for easier understanding. I have also tried to mention explicit sources for my facts. My sources are mainly modern Western and Israeli historians, who in turn also rely on U.N. reports, U.S. Govt., British Govt. and Israeli Govt.’s public files archives and recently declassified documents.

Since when did the land of Palestine become a predominantly Arab land?

"Palestine became a predominately Arab and Islamic country by the end of the seventh century. Almost immediately thereafter its boundaries and its characteristics - including its name in Arabic, Filastin - became known to the entire Islamic world, as much for its fertility and beauty as for its religious significance...In 1516, Palestine became a province of the Ottoman Empire, but this made it no less fertile, no less Arab or Islamic...Sixty percent of the population was in agriculture; the balance was divided between townspeople and a relatively small nomadic group. All these people believed themselves to belong in a land called Palestine, despite their feelings that they were also members of a large Arab nation..." [1]

"But all these [different peoples who had come to Canaan] were additions, sprigs grafted onto the parent tree...And that parent tree was Canaanite...[The Arab invaders of the 7th century A.D.] made Moslem converts of the natives, settled down as residents, and intermarried with them, with the result that all are now so completely Arabized that we cannot tell where the Canaanites leave off and the Arabs begin.” [2]

So, for how many years have Arab people living in the land of Palestine up till 1900?

The Arabs have been living in Palestine since 700 AD. This means they have been living there for about 1200 years at 1900 AD. i.e. for innumerous generations.

How many indigenous Jews have been living in Palestine?

There have been a indigenous Jewish minority who had also been living in Palestine for innumerous generations. In 1870, out of the total population of 375,000 in Palestine, the indigenous Jews numbered 7,000 only which is roughly 2% of the population. [3]

Have these indigenous Jews been living peacefully with their Arab neighbors all this time?

"Before the 20th century, most Jews in Palestine belonged to old Yishuv, or community, that had settled more for religious than for political reasons. There was little if any conflict between them and the Arab population. Tensions began after the first Zionist settlers arrived in the 1880's...when [they] purchased land from absentee Arab owners, leading to dispossession of the peasants who had cultivated it." [4]

”The Arabs throughout their history have not only been free from anti-Jewish sentiment but have also shown that the spirit of compromise is deeply rooted in their life. There is no decent-minded person, he said, who would not want to do everything humanly possible to relieve the distress of those persons, provided that it was not at the cost of inflicting a corresponding distress on another people.” [5]

How and when did Zionism form?

In the late years of the 19th century, anti-Semitism (Persecution of European Jews in European Christian Countries) became especially virulent in Russia and re-emerged in France. Some Jews concluded that only in a Jewish state would Jews be safe and thus founded Zionism. In 1885, Austrian journalist, Theodor Herzl attended the trial of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, falsely accused of treason by French army officers and Catholic clerics. He was inspired then to write the book "Judenstaat" ("The Jewish State") calling for the establishment of a Jewish state in which Jews would be safe from anti-Semitism. The World Zionist Organization, established by Herzl in 1897, declared that the aim of Zionism was to establish "a national home for the Jewish people secured by public law.” Most European Jews at the time rejected Zionism, preferring instead to address the problem of anti-Semitism through revolutionary or reformist politics or assimilation.

Did any indigenous Jew conceive Zionism? What was their reaction to Zionism?

Zionism was a purely European Jewish idea. The small Jewish community in Palestine maintained that a Jewish state could only be established by God, not by humans.

What is the relationship between Judaism, Zionism and Anti-Semitism?

Zionism is not Judaism, Judaism is not Zionism, and to be anti-Zionist is in no way to be anti-Semitic. Zionism is a political movement, first devoted to the foundation of the state, and then to the advancement of Israel, politically, diplomatically, financially and otherwise. On the other hand, Judaism, which gave birth to Christianity and Islam, is a relationship between man and God requiring no political loyalty -- only a belief in certain immutable universal principles of conduct, notably, righteousness and justice -- totally unrelated to any piece of land.

Was Palestine the only, or even preferred, destination of Jews facing persecution when the Zionist movement started?

The pogroms(riots) forced many Jews to leave Russia. Societies known as 'Lovers of Zion,' which were forerunners of the Zionist organization, convinced some of the frightened emigrants to go to Palestine. There, they argued, Jews would rebuild the ancient Jewish 'Kingdom of David and Solomon,' Most Russian Jews ignored their appeal and fled to Europe and the United States. By 1900, almost a million Jews had settled in the United States alone

Does history support the claim support the Zionist contention that Palestine belonged to them alone?

History does not support the Zionist contention that Palestine belonged to them alone. Twelve Jewish tribes started in Canaan thirty-five centuries ago and not only did ten of them disappear, more than half of the other two never returned from exile in Babylon. Israelite, Judean, Judaism, Jew and the Jewish people are used by the myth-makers synonymously to suggest a historic continuity. In fact, they were different people at different times in history with varying ways of life who continually intermarried with the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Midianites and other Semitic ancestors of present-day Arabs whom they found there. In his book, "The Thirteenth Tribe," Arthur Koestler pointed out that today's Jews were for the most part descendants of the Khazars who converted to Judaism seven centuries after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. People who wished to follow one God became Jews in a colorful ceremony in the 8th century and then spread Judaism throughout the Rhine and Rhone valleys. This view of the non-ethnicity of the major portion of Jewry is sustained by prominent anthropologists such as Ripley, Weissenberg, Hertz, Boas Pittard, Fishberg, Mead and others.

Why would the Arabs (or for that matter, any person who exercises even minimal logical reasoning) fail to understand the unique and special historical connection of Jews to the land of Palestine/Eretz Israel?

The alleged “historical connection” of only the Jews to Palestine raises all sorts of questions legitimately asked by the Palestinian Arabs. Questions like:
• Is there any connection between Tsarist Russia’s pogrom(or even Nazi Holocaust) and inflaming the “unique and special connection” Jews have to “Eretz Israel”?
• Since “Eretz Israel” historically spanned the borders of occupied West Bank, western parts of Jordan, occupied Golan heights, Sinai Peninsula, southern Lebanon, and Southern Syria, does that imply:

Israel must never relinquish “Jewish Sovereignty” over the occupied West Bank, occupied Golan Heights and liberated Southern Lebanon?

Israel must reoccupy and reinvade southern Lebanon?

Israel must eventually nullify the peace treaties it has signed with Egypt and Jordan since “Eretz Israel” spans some of Egypt’s and Jordan’s present day borders?

• Let us assume that all of the above arguments makes no sense to the average Jew and Zionist, then:
What makes this “unique connection” different from the “unique connection” German, Polish, Greek, Italian, Egyptian...etc. Christians have for Jerusalem, Nazareth and Bethlehem?
Why would this “unique and special” connection imply Palestinian dispossession?

Who controlled the area during late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century?

The area was part of the Ottoman Empire at that time.

So what was the population statistics in Palestine at this point of time (1878)?

According to Ottoman records, in 1878 there were 462,465 subject inhabitants: 403,795 Muslims (including Druze), 43,659 Christians and 15,011 Jews.

How many European Jews were present in Palestine at this time (1878) ?

According to the same Ottoman records, there were approximately 10,000 Jews with foreign citizenship. They were the recent immigrants to the land. These foreign Jews consisted 2% of the total population in 1878. In total, the Jews consisted about 4% of the total population at that time.

What did the European Zionists think of the indigenous Arab majority( 98% of the people) at that time?

In October 1882, Vladimir Dubnow, one of the earliest Zionist pioneers in Palestine, wrote to his brother articulating the ultimate goals of the Zionists movement:
"The ultimate goal . . . is, in time, to take over the Land of Israel… the Jews will yet arise and, arms in hand (if need be), declare that they are the masters of their ancient homeland.” [6]

In October 1882 Ben-Yehuda and Yehiel Michal Pines, few of the earliest Zionist pioneers in Palestine, wrote describing the indigenous Palestinians:
". . . There are now only five hundred [thousand] Arabs, who are not very strong, and from whom we shall easily take away the country if only we do it through stratagems [and] without drawing upon us their hostility before we become a the strong and papules ones." [7]

Chaim Weizmann, who became Israel's first President, was one of the three Zionist leaders (along with Theodor Herzl and David Ben-Gurion) most responsible for turning Zionism into reality.

Just prior to the British conquest of Palestine, Weizmann wrote describing the indigenous Palestinians:
"[the indigenous population was akin to] the rocks of Judea, as obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path." [8]

Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion wrote at that time: “THE RIGHTS TO PALESTINE DO NOT BELONG TO THE EXISTING SETTLERS (note: these ‘settler’ Arabs have been living there for 1200 years), WHETHER THEY BE JEWS OR ARABS (note: here Ben-Gurion doesn’t even care about the native non-European Jews). THE CRUX IS THE RIGHT OF RETURN OF JEWRY DISPERSED.”

Another Zionist Leader Ze’ev Jabotinsky said, “THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS NO LAW, AND NO GOD IN HEAVEN, ONLY A SINGLE LAW THAT DECIDES AND SUPERSEDES ALL – [JEWISH] SETTLEMENT [OF THE LAND].” [9]

Were these European Zionists right in their view of right of the indigenous Arab people of Palestine? How did the European Jewish settlers treat the Arabs?

The Zionist Organization’s second president David Wolffsohn, remarked in 1908: “One has to pay special attention to the important fact that Arabs are, after all, the master of the country.” [10]

Ahad Ha'Am, a liberal Russian Jewish thinker and a leading Eastern European Jewish essayist, who visited Palestine in 1891 for three months. In 1891, Ha'Am opened many Jewish eyes to the fact the Palestine was not empty, but populated with its indigenous people when he wrote:
"We abroad are used to believe the Eretz Yisrael is now almost totally desolate, a desert that is not sowed ..... But in truth that is not the case. Throughout the country it is difficult to find fields that are not sowed. Only sand dunes and stony mountains .... are not cultivated. [11]
"[The Jewish settlers] treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, beat them shamelessly for no sufficient reason, and even take pride in doing so. The Jews were slaves in the land of their Exile, and suddenly they found themselves with unlimited freedom, wild freedom that ONLY exists in a land like Turkey. This sudden change has produced in their hearts an inclination towards repressive tyranny, as always happens when slave rules."

Ahad Ha'am warned: "We are used to thinking of the Arabs as primitive men of the desert, as a donkey-like nation that neither sees nor understands what is going around it. But this is a GREAT ERROR. The Arab, like all sons of Sham, has sharp and crafty mind . . . Should time come when life of our people in Palestine imposes to a smaller or greater extent on the natives, they WILL NOT easily step aside. [12]

Ha’Am could see through the injustice of Zionism towards Palestinian people and remarked:
"Better to die in the Exile than to die here and be buried in the land of fathers, if that land is considered the 'homeland' of the [Palestinian] Arabs and we are strangers in it." [13]

In 1923, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Zionist political and military leader, wrote of how Palestinians really felt of their attachment to Palestine:
"They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true favor the Aztecs looked upon Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. Palestine will remain for the Palestinians not a borderland, but their birthplace, the center and basis of their own national existence."

Yitzhak Epstein was one of the few Zionist Jewish leaders who were Palestinians, which gave him especial understanding of Arabs way of life and thinking. In 1905, during the Zionist Congress convention at Bessel (Switzerland), Yitzhak Epstein delivered a lecture about the "Arab question":
"Among the difficult questions connected to the idea of the renaissance of our people on its soil there is one which is equal to all others: the question of our relations with the Arabs. . . . We have FORGOTTEN one small matter: There is in our beloved land an entire nation, which has occupied it for hundreds of years and has never thought to leave it. . . .

We are making a GREAT psychological error with regard to a great, assertive, and jealous people. While we feel a deep love for the land of our forefathers, we forgot that the nation who lives in it today has a sensitive heart and loving soul. The Arab, like every man, is tied to his native land with strong bonds."

Later in 1925, Arthur Ruppin, the leader of Jewish Bi-Partitionist organization Brit Shalom, wrote that what Zionists were doing “has no equal in history. The aim is to bring the Jews as a second nation into a country WHICH ALREADY IS SETTLED AS A NATION.. History has seen such penetration by one nation in to a strange land only by conquest. “ Never in history it has “occurred that a nation will fully agree that another nation should come and demand national autonomy at its side.” [14]

So, now that it is clear that the European Jews didn’t really have the 'right' to dispossess the current inhabitants of Palestine as admitted by themselves in their quotes, how did they want to accomplish their ‘belated’ colonialist adventure of planting European Jews in that land?

The Zionist strategy was obvious:

-Buy land and never sell them back (which didn’t really prove very fruitful)
-Become the majority in the land through immigration
-Appeal to a superpower who would allot them the Land.

All these were done WITHOUT ANY RESPECT TO THE RIGHT OF THE MAJORITY (95%) OF INHABITANTS (ARABS).

Zionist Leader Ben Yehuda wrote to his friend in 1882, in an almost sinister tone: “The thing we must do now is to become as strong as we can, to conquer the country, bit by bit…We can only do this covertly, quietly…We will not set up committees so that the Arabs will know what we are after, we shall act like silent spies, we shall buy, buy, buy.” [15]

In 1895, Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote in his diary:
“We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly.” [16]

On 7 July 1902, Herzl was asked why Russian Jews could not be settled in uninhabited lands other than Palestine, such as Argentina, he replied:
"[Such resettlement would fail] because when you want a great settlement, you must have a flag and an idea. You CANNOT make those things ONLY WITH MONEY. . . With money you CANNOT make a general movement of a great mass of people. You must give them an ideal. You must put into them the belief in their future, and then you will be able to take out the devotion of the hardest labor imaginable. [For example,] Argentina has a very GOOD SOIL and the conditions for agricultural labor are MUCH BETTER than in Palestine, but in Palestine they work with enthusiasm and they succeed.

Regarding European anti-Semites, Herzl explained how it could benefit the Zionist enterprise, he wrote in his diary:
"The [European] anti-Semites WILL BECOME our most loyal friends, the anti-Semite [European] nations will become our allies."

Weizmann wrote:
"... should Palestine fall within the British sphere of influence, and should Britain encourage a Jewish settlement there, as a British dependency, we could have in 20 to 30 years a million Jews out there - perhaps more…” [17]

How did the British get to rule Palestine?

After the World War 1, the Ottoman Empire disintegrated. The Allied powers then formed the League of Nations, which decided the Arab world would be divided up among the British, the French and independent Arab rulers. The British got the mandate to rule Palestine.

What is the Balfour Declaration?

Weizmann realized that Zionism’s hopes for a Jewish state in Palestine lay with the British. He led the Jewish lobby to build links with Lloyd George, a future Prime Minister, Arthur Balfour , a future Foreign Secretary, Herbert Samuel, a British Jew and a future High Commissioner of Palestine. Constant lobbying led to the Balfour Declaration in 1917:

“His Majesty’s Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people…it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities.”

Did the Palestinian Arabs know of the “Balfour Declaration”?

The Balfour Declaration was made public only in 1920 after the installation of civilian administration, having been kept officially confidential until then to minimize protests anticipated from the Palestinians.

Did the British assure the Palestinian Arabs of their independence?

Correspondence between British High Commissioner Sir Henry McMahon and Sherif Husain, the Emir of Mecca during 1915-16 included this: “The whole of Palestine lies within the limits which His Majesty’s Government has pledged themselves to Sherif Husain that they will recognize and uphold the independence of Arabs.” [18].

Therefore, the Palestinian Arabs at this point were right to think that they will achieve independence soon just like other Arab countries.

Population Watch: December 1918:

Jewish population in Palestine is 66,000(~10%). Arab population: around 580,000.

What happened soon after the World War 1(1914-191 ? What were the British, Zionist and Palestinian Arab activities and views during this period? What was the view of the United States?

Post World War 1 Situation(1918-) : Zionization starts under British rule and direct co-operation:

1918: Britain gains control of Palestine. Britain’s official policy on the region was based on Balfour Declaration: “zionizing” Palestine, i.e. dumping European Jews into Palestine through immigration. This was clearly opposite to their assurance given to Palestinian Arabs of their independence. But, when they tried to implement it, the British observed resistance from the inhabitants. The British tried to calm the justly angry Arabs, the official approach being “to apologize to the Arabs for a slip of tongue by Mr. Balfour.”

Observation of British Authority stationed in Palestine:

The first British Military Governor of Palestine and also a self-proclaimed British Zionist, Colonel Ronald Storrs commented: “Palestine, up to now a Moslem Country, has fallen into the hands of a Christian power which on the eve of its conquest announced that a considerable portion of its (the Arabs’) land is to be handed over for colonization purposes to a nowhere very popular people( the Jews).” [19]

Major General Arthur Money, the then current authority of the region wrote that the Zionist encroachment was “a policy of oppression of the local inhabitants in favor of the Jewish minority.” [20]

Palestinian’s view on the British policy of Zionization:

On Nov 3, 1918, more than a hundred Palestinian Muslim and Christian notables notified the British administration that the Jewish settlers “pretend with open voice that Palestine, which is the land of our fathers and the graveyard of our ancestors, which has been inhabited by Arabs for long ages, who loved it and died in it defending it, is now a national home for them.” [21]

In April 1919, Money wrote to Lord Curzon to inform him the Palestinian’s view: “The Palestinians in fact desire Palestine for themselves, and have no intention of allowing their country to be thrown open to hordes of Jews from Eastern and central Europe.” Money also added that implementing Balfour Declaration would involve Britain in use of force “in opposition to the will of the majority of the population.” [22]

There were native outbursts and petitions against Zionism from the very beginning. The British Officials correctly noted that these outbursts conveyed “the fundamental antipathy towards Zionism felt by most politically conscious Arabs.”

United States’ view on the British policy of Zionization:

President Wilson, leader of one of the allied powers, appointed two Americans, Henry King and Charles Crane as the two members of a commission to prepare a report on the issue. Wilson was strongly in favor of the principle of Self-Determination, which backed the current inhabitants of any occupied land to choose their destiny.

In their report, the commission stated: “The wishes of Palestine’s population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine….the non-Jewish population of Palestine – nearly nine-tenths of the whole- are emphatically against the whole Zionist programme. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land would be a gross violation of the self-determination principle and of the people’s rights.” [23]

The commission also stated:
“For the initial claim...submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a “right” to Palestine, based on an occupation of two thousand years ago, CAN HARDLY BE SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED.” [24]

“Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine.” [25]

So, what happened after this? (We are now in 1920)

The finalization of the British Mandate in Palestine:

The Allied Supreme Council met in San Remo in April 1920 to decide the final disposition of Palestine, i.e., the drafting of the Palestine Mandate. The Zionistss lobbied and exchanged drafts with the British Authorities to gain as much as advantage as possible. They had a lot of pro-Zionist British leaders(i.e., Balfour, Samuel, etc.) to help their cause. But they also had to face strong opposition from other members of the British Parliament and Government who could see through the Zionist schemes. Most prominent was Lord Curzon, who wrote in ironic fashion:

“The Zionists are after a Jewish state with the Arabas Hewers of wood and drawers of Water.

“Here is a country with 580,000 Arabs and 60,000 Jews( by no means all Zionists). Acting upon the noble principles of self-determination and ending with a splendid appeal to the League of Nations, we then proceed to draw up a document( the Mandate) which is an avowed constitution for a Jewish State. [26]

The Zionists, led by Weizmann, wanted to include the phrase “Recognizing the historic rights of the Jews to Palestine” in the preamble of the Mandate. But Curzon was vehemently against it: “ I could not admit the phrase..It is certain to be made the basis of all sorts of claim in the future. I do not myself recognize that the connection of the Jews with Palestine, which terminated 1200 years ago, gives them any claim whatsoever…I greatly dislike giving the draft to the Zionists, but in the view of the indiscretions already committed, I suppose that this is inevitable…” [27]

In the British Parliament, Lord Sydenham, discussing the Mandate, commented this which has turned out to be prophetic in the end: “…the harm done by dumping down an alien population upon an Arab country may never be remedied.. what we have done by concessions to a Zionist extreme section, is to start a running sore in the East, and no one can tell how far the sore will extend.” [28]

In fact, the House of Lords voted to repeal the Balfour Declaration, but a similar motion was defeated in the House of Commons and the British Government officially accepted the Palestine Mandate, whose final wordings included the ”historical connection” and “reconstitution” of a Jewish “national home” in Palestine.

Like the Zionists, were the Paelstinians ever consulted during the drafting and finalization of the British Mandate of Palestine, which later paved the way for a Jewsih state in Palestine?

The answer is an emphatic NO. The only move towards consultation had been the US King-Crane Commission, whose views were ignored. A few years later, however, the US officially declared its support of the British Mandate, thus consenting with the Balfour Declaration. The Mandate, surely, overrode the inherent political rights of the Palestinian people.

Did the Palestinians protest the clearly Zionist nature of the Mandate?

Yes. The Arab Higher Committee protested that “the Mandate was…not directed to the ‘well-being and development’ of the existing Arab population but to the promotion of Jewish interests.”

So what happened after this? Was the Palestine Mandate different from other Mandates?

The Palestine Mandate got established against the will of the Palestinian people, and the process of establishing the “Jewish National Home” commenced. The Palestine Mandate was in marked contrast to the mandate for Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, and violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine and their natural rights of independence and self-determination. The Mandates System was in the interest of the inhabitants of the Mandated Territory, but the Palestine Mandate was conceived in the interest of an alien people originating from outside Palestine, and ran counter to the basic concept of the Mandates. According to an opposing member of the British Parliament Lord Islington, “The Palestine Mandate was a real distortion of the mandatory system.”

Who was in charge of Palestine in now?

Churchill in charge:

In March 1921, the responsibility of Palestine was given to Sir Winston Churchill. Churchill was definitely pro-Zionist. He published a white paper in 1922 which said “the existence of a national Jewish home in Palestine” was necessary and “should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.” To fulfill this policy, Churchill said it was necessary “the Jewish community in Palestine should be able to increase its numbers by immigration.”

What was the Palestinian view of the Churchill Plan?

The Palestinians opposed Churchill’s policy, declaring: “Nothing will safeguard Arab interest in Palestine but the immediate creation of a national government which shall be responsible to a parliament of all whose members are elected by the people of the country- Moslems, Christians and Jews.” [29]

Population and Land Ownership Watch: 1922:

Jewish: 70,000 Jews own 2.5 percent of total land Arab: 680,000 Arabs own 97.5% of the land.

What was the nature of Jewish immigration to Palestine during the 1920’s? How did it compare to the Jewish immigration to America?

Churchill’s policy made increasing Jewish immigration in Palestine possible. Between 1920 and 1929, about 100,000 Jewish immigrants entered Palestine. Ironically, this was far short of the “millions of Jews ready to come back to their homeland“ as claimed by the World Zionist Organization. In fact, over a million Jews have already immigrated to the US before 1900.

*******

Sources:

1. Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine"
2. Illeane Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan"
3. Alexander Scholch, "The Demographic Development of Palestine 1850-1882"
4. Don Peretz, "The Arab-Israeli Dispute"
5. British Government, Palestine Royal Commission - Report, Cmd. 5479 (1937), p. 395.
6. Eliezer Be’eri, “The Beginning of the Israeli-Arab Conflict, 1882-1911”, page 38
7. Eliezer Be’eri, “The Beginning of the Israeli-Arab Conflict, 1882-1911”, page 39
8. Nur Masalha, “Expulsion Of The Palestinians”, p. 17
9. Ya’akov Shavit, “Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Movement, 1925-1948
10. Eliezer Be’eri, “The Beginning of the Israeli-Arab Conflict, 1882-1911”, page 137
11. Rashid Khalidi, “Palestinian Peasant Resistance to Zionism before WW1”, page 216
12. A. Cohen, Israel and the Arab World”, page 58
13. Ibid.
14. Allan C Brownfeld, Washington Report on Middle East, March 1998, Pages 29-31
15. Eliezer Be’eri, “The Beginning of the Israeli-Arab Conflict, 1882-1911”, page 38
16. Benny Morris, “Righteous Victims”, page 21-22
17. UN: The Origins And Evolution Of Palestine Problem, section II
18. The Times of London, 17 April, 1974
19. British Government, Public Record Office, Cabinet No. 27/239(191, reproduced in Doreen, “The Palestinian Papers”
20. Bernard Wasserstein, “Britain and the Jews of Europe”, page 14
21. Bernard Wasserstein, “The British in Palestine”, page 31-32
22. Bernard Wasserstein, “Britain and the Jews of Europe”, page 48
23. United States Government, “Foreign Relations of the United States: the Paris Peace Conference(Washington 1944) Vol. XII, page 793.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. British Government, Foreign Office No 371/5199
27. British Government, Foreign Office No 371/5245
28. British Government, Hansard’s Reports, House of Lords, 21 June 1922, page 1025
29. British Government, Palestine: Statement of Policy – Cmd. 1700(1922), pages 19-28.

Arnab
April 7, 2004, 09:32 PM
Say,

1. Delete the quote of my post from your post.

2. Yes, I forgot to mention the Lilienthal speech. But I left a loophole for it in the introduction. I also forgot to mention other sources as well, like about four or five books written by prominent Israeli historians, some Palestinian websites, etc.

I was TIRED! It was not a paper to be published free of every bit of plagiarism, but my own attempt to understand the history. Deal with it!

The "by Arnab" means "It was Arnab who painstakingly sifted through thousands of pages of history books, UN Documents, website articles, etc." to compile a comprehensively chronological timeline."

[Edited on 8-4-2004 by Arnab]

say
April 7, 2004, 09:37 PM
fair enough.. thanks for the clarification

[Edited on 8-4-2004 by say]

Zobair
April 7, 2004, 10:00 PM
I would also suggest reading Norman Finklestein on the subject of Palestine-Israeli conflict. Hardhitting, to the point, no nonsense outlook. For his stance on this issue, he, like many other likeminded jews, has been ostrasized as a "self-hating jew".

Here is a flavour from his website:

An Introduction to the Israel-Palestine Conflict
(Updated: September 2002)


Background

To resolve what was called the "Jewish question" - i.e., the reciprocal challenges of Gentile repulsion or anti-Semitism and Gentile attraction or assimilation - the Zionist movement sought in the late nineteenth century to create an overwhelmingly, if not homogeneously, Jewish state in Palestine. (1) Once the Zionist movement gained a foothold in Palestine through Great Britain's issuance of the Balfour Declaration, (2) the main obstacle to realizing its goal was the indigenous Arab population. For, on the eve of Zionist colonization, Palestine was overwhelmingly not Jewish but Muslim and Christian Arab. (3)

Across the mainstream Zionist spectrum, it was understood from the outset that Palestine's indigenous Arab population would not acquiesce in its dispossession. "Contrary to the claim that is often made, Zionism was not blind to the presence of Arabs in Palestine," Zeev Sternhell observes. "If Zionist intellectuals and leaders ignored the Arab dilemma, it was chiefly because they knew that this problem had no solution within the Zionist way of thinking…. [I]n general both sides understood each other well and knew that the implementation of Zionism could be only at the expense of the Palestinian Arabs." Moshe Shertok (later Sharett) contemptuously dismissed the "illusive hopes" of those who spoke about a "'mutual misunderstanding' between us and the Arabs, about 'common interests' [and] about 'the possibility of unity and peace between the two fraternal peoples.'" "There is no example in history," David Ben-Gurion declared, succinctly framing the core problem, "that a nation opens the gates of its country, not because of necessity…but because the nation which wants to come in has explained its desire to it." (4)


"The tragedy of Zionism," Walter Laqueur wrote in his standard history, "was that it appeared on the international scene when there were no longer empty spaces on the world map." This is not quite right. Rather it was no longer politically tenable to create such spaces: extermination had ceased to be an option of conquest. (5) Basically the Zionist movement could only choose between two strategic options to achieve its goal: what Benny Morris has labeled "the way of South Africa" - "the establishment of an apartheid state, with a settler minority lording it over a large, exploited native majority" - or the "the way of transfer" - "you could create a homogenous Jewish state or at least a state with an overwhelming Jewish majority by moving or transferring all or most of the Arabs out." (6)

Round One - "The way of transfer"
In the first round of conquest, the Zionist movement set its sights on "the way of transfer." For all the public rhetoric about wanting to "live with the Arabs in conditions of unity and mutual honor and together with them to turn the common homeland into a flourishing land" (Twelfth Zionist Congress, 1921), the Zionists from early on were in fact bent on expelling them. "The idea of transfer had accompanied the Zionist movement from its very beginnings," Tom Segev reports. "'Disappearing' the Arabs lay at the heart of the Zionist dream, and was also a necessary condition of its existence…. With few exceptions, none of the Zionists disputed the desirability of forced transfer - or its morality." The key was to get the timing right. Ben-Gurion, reflecting on the expulsion option in the late 1930s, wrote: "What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and what is possible in such great hours is not carried out - a whole world is lost." (7)...

continued here (http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id128.htm)

I would also recommend Prof. Finklestein's "Image and Reality of the Israel- Palestine Conflict" (1995).


Recently he has been involved in a public debate with Alan Dershowitz (a Harvard law prof. who is a vocal Zionist and wrote a book called "The Case for Israel") regarding the validilty of the latter's point of view and the "facts" he mentioned in his book. His demolition of Dershowitz is worth watching: You can watch it here (http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2003/sept/128/dn20030924a.rm&proto=rtsp&start=07:10.3)

Palestine-Israel conflict is a really complex one and it is important to really read up on it before making any comments.

al Furqaan
April 7, 2004, 10:04 PM
you really spent a lot of time on this.

you gave the evidence and i said i would change my views but whatever wrong or illegal way the jews obtained palestine as their nation, they still derserved a nation. this is a complex issue and i think that we should negotiate for peace. im not saying that we should surrender but we should opt for a palestinian state with jerusalem as our capital. if we lay down our arms then perhaps they will give it to us. if not, then i dont know what to do...the situation will not solved until jesus (AS)returns.

Zunaid
April 7, 2004, 10:06 PM
Thanks Arnab, for that painstakenly compiled list.

say
April 7, 2004, 10:12 PM
Al, who are the 'we' in your writing? are you a palestainian??

Originally posted by al Furqaan
you really spent a lot of time on this.

you gave the evidence and i said i would change my views but whatever wrong or illegal way the jews obtained palestine as their nation, they still derserved a nation. this is a complex issue and i think that we should negotiate for peace. im not saying that we should surrender but we should opt for a palestinian state with jerusalem as our capital. if we lay down our arms then perhaps they will give it to us. if not, then i dont know what to do...the situation will not solved until jesus (AS)returns.

Zunaid
April 7, 2004, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Zunaid
Thanks Arnab, for that painstakenly compiled list.

Having said that, there is much truth in what Al Furqaan said.

Leaving aside the issues of the NP-complete Arab-Israeli conflict and the hypocrisy of the West there is much to fault the Muslim world. As long we let a despcicable few define to the wrold who we are, how much authority do we have in voicing our concern for the evil that others do. Sins of omissions are just as blameworthy as sins of comissions.

cliche alert on:

If my own house is not in order how can I point my finger at someone else
People in glass houses should not throw stones
Let he be without sin cast the first stone

cliche alert off

fab
April 7, 2004, 10:39 PM
Arnab, thanks for your article/compilation! It was very well researched.
Originally posted by Zunaid
Having said that, there is much truth in what Al Furqaan said.

With all due respect, I don't think Arnab has touched on the Arab-Israeli wars (i.e. post 1947) yet (?), which is what Al Furqaan was referring to right?

Furqaan, I am interested to know why you think Jews 'deserve' their own state?

Zunaid
April 7, 2004, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by fab
Arnab, thanks for your article/compilation! It was very well researched.
Originally posted by Zunaid
Having said that, there is much truth in what Al Furqaan said.

With all due respect, I don't think Arnab has touched on the Arab-Israeli wars (i.e. post 1947) yet (?), which is what Al Furqaan was referring to right?


That's why I left aside the Arab-Israeli conflict which of course is rooted in all the past that Arnab researched.

There is truth in what Arnab wrote and there is truth in what Al Furqaan wrote.

Arnab
April 8, 2004, 12:23 AM
Following the adage "A picture is worth a thousand words", I present you a series of maps regarding the recent history of Palestine:

Disclaimer: The forum form factor has to compromise with the size of the pictures.

http://www.passia.org/images/pal_facts_MAPS/first_zionist_colony_in_palestine_1878.gif

http://www.passia.org/images/pal_facts_MAPS/zionist_colonies_in_palestine_at_beginning.gif

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Peel1937-new.gif

http://www.passia.org/images/pal_facts_MAPS/zionist_palestinian_landownership.gif

http://www.pengon.org/wall/map4.jpg

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Landownership_UN-Partition.gif

[Edited on 2-5-2004 by Arnab]

Arnab
April 8, 2004, 12:25 AM
Border after 1967 war.

http://www.pengon.org/wall/map6.jpg

Arnab
April 8, 2004, 12:25 AM
http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Oslo-II.gif


This is the "peace settlement" offer by Ehud Barak that Arafat rejected in 2001. Look closely at the historical comparison submap.

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Taba2001.gif

[Edited on 2-5-2004 by Arnab]

Arnab
April 8, 2004, 12:26 AM
This is what Sharon offered:


<a href="http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Sharon2001.gif"><img src="http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Sharon2001.gif" width="500"><br>Click for a Full-Sized Image</a>

[Edited on 8-4-2004 by Zunaid]

Arnab
April 8, 2004, 12:26 AM
2003- : The "wall" Sharon is trying to build.

<a href="http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Seperation-Fence-July2003.gif"><img src="http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Seperation-Fence-July2003.gif" width=500><br>Click for a Full-sized Image</a>

?The Wall? being constructed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon?s Likud-led coalition government?ostensibly to keep terrorists out?is euphemistically referred to as a ?security fence? or ?Seam Zone?. The word ?annexation? is avoided because it too accurately describes what is happening via the wall?s construction. The final route of the wall is as yet undetermined but on completion it will be between 450 and 650 kilometres long.

In parts the wall is an eight-metre high concrete barrier, but mostly it forms a no-man?s-land 60-100 metres wide with buffer zones, trenches, barbed wire, electric fences with sensors, a two-lane patrol road and fortified guard towers. There are also 100-metre wide ?no-go? areas on either side patrolled by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF).

There is widespread scepticism regarding the wall?s ability to keep out determined terrorists. Even the Israeli State Comptroller noted in July 2002, ?IDF documents indicate that most of the suicide terrorists and car bombs crossed the seam area into Israel through the checkpoints.?

The wall is built on Palestinian land. It does not follow the so called Green Line, which marks the unofficial boundary between Israel and the proposed Palestinian state, but regularly intrudes six or seven kilometres into Palestinian territory so as to incorporate illegal Jewish settlements into the Israeli zone. A decision taken last week has gone further still and proposes a 20-kilometre loop into Palestinian territory to include the settlements of Ariel, Immanuel and Kedumim.

Israeli daily Ha?aretz reports that the blocs incorporated in this sweep contain around 80 percent of the settlers in the West Bank. In all, it is thought that as much as half of the 400,000-settler population will be incorporated into Israel. Ha?aretz reports also that approximately 60,000 Palestinians will end up inside this planned loop, on top of the 80,000 that human rights group B?Tselem estimates will be caught behind the main wall.

[Edited on 8-4-2004 by Zunaid : image edit]

chinaman
April 8, 2004, 12:38 AM
The pics do compromise the forum layout. Take long time even with broadband connection to load. Can't imagine with dial-ups. Readers might loose interest in reading the posts in this thread.

Perhaps pointers to the images would be a better idea.

Arnab
April 8, 2004, 12:45 AM
Chinaman, I know you like playing the daddy of the forum. But...

[deleted: no call for that]

The pictures are fine. The people who are really interested and want to look at them will look at them ANYWAY. You don't have to psychoanalyze and predict mass behavior. People patiently wait and watch HUNDREDS of useless pics on the internet everyday.

What you can do is to find me the board codes on how to resize the pics to a reasonable size. I will then consider applying them.

[Edited on 8-4-2004 by Arnab]

[Edited on 8-4-2004 by Zunaid]

Zunaid
April 8, 2004, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by Arnab

----

[Edited on 8-4-2004 by Arnab]

Arnab, that was completely uncalled for. A reasonably polite remonstration from Chinaman and all you can do is lash out with vituperations?

I am usually, and perhaps excessivley, tolerant but this even exceeds my high threshold.

Consider this an official warning.

Yes, I am putting on my Fascist Moderator hat.

- Zunaid

Zunaid
April 8, 2004, 01:07 AM
&lt;a href="original-image-url"&gt;&lt;img src="original-image-url" width=500&gt;&lt;br&gt;Click for a Full-sized Image&lt;/a&gt;

example:

&lt;a href="http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Seperation-Fence-July2003.gif"&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Seperation-Fence-July2003.gif" width=500&gt;&lt;br&gt;Click for a Full-sized Image&lt;/a&gt;

Orpheus
April 8, 2004, 02:28 AM
Good job Zunaid!

no man is above the law or below it...

I don't even know what this thread is all about and here I am posting... I like fights!

Arnab
April 8, 2004, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Zunaid
Arnab, that was completely uncalled for. A reasonably polite remonstration from Chinaman and all you can do is lash out with vituperations?

I am usually, and perhaps excessivley, tolerant but this even exceeds my high threshold.

Consider this an official warning.

Yes, I am putting on my Fascist Moderator hat.

- Zunaid

Whatever. Chinaman's arguments about slow download etc. were unreasonable. Even if you follow the link, the pictures will load at the same speed. And I also put a disclaimer about the pic size before I posted them.

What irked me was his nagging penchant of "nak golano" in every afffair.

*****

Orpheus: Good job on the [].

[Edited on 8-4-2004 by Zunaid : tsk tsk]

Zunaid
April 8, 2004, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Arnab
Originally posted by Zunaid
Arnab, that was completely uncalled for. A reasonably polite remonstration from Chinaman and all you can do is lash out with vituperations?

I am usually, and perhaps excessivley, tolerant but this even exceeds my high threshold.

Consider this an official warning.

Yes, I am putting on my Fascist Moderator hat.

- Zunaid

Whatever. Chinaman's arguments about slow download etc. were unreasonable. Even if you follow the link, the pictures will load at the same speed. And I also put a disclaimer about the pic size before I posted them.

What irked me was his nagging penchant of "nak golano" in every afffair.

*****

Orpheus: Good job on the [].

Had you phrased your response like the above, it should have been fine.

However, "whatever" has no truck with me and you don't get off that easy. I am still waiting a mature response to your post.

And you are digging yourself deeper in the muck with that peurile dig at Orpheus. That could be taken as strike two.

Arnab
April 8, 2004, 12:00 PM
Man, don't give me the "mature" bs. Sticking to the topic and providing thought-provoking posts with well-researched opinions and data is maturity. Nagging relentlessly about petty, useless stuff like the forum form factor, size of pics, use of language, download time, and then giving warnings about such stuff is childish.

*****

Back to the topic: From the pictures it is pretty evident that the UN Partition Plan in 1947 was horribly biased. And the reason it went through was because the US (probably due to the pressure of the Jewish lobby here) actually coaxed out votes from smaller countries in the security council on the partition plan. But it was not unanimously agreed upon. All the Arab nations rejected the plan. A lot of countries abstained from voting.

Zionists, on the other hand, declared Israel's independence before the partition plan was finalized and was still being debated on. Zionists based the date of their independence based on the closing date of the British Mandate. Well, the problem is that the British Mandate was de facto invalid since the problem was transferred to the UN a long time ago. The question is then why pre-Israel zionists specifically chose that date. The answer lies in the fact that zionists had been preparing for a war for a long time and building her own army and ammunition. They declared their independence based on military strategy, at a point when they felt confident enough to defeat the Arabs and drive armless Palestinians over the new "border" that they just made up out of thin air. The goal was to grab as much land as possible.

Orpheus
April 8, 2004, 12:19 PM
Orpheus: Good job on the [].

Ah man I missed it! Moderators should have atleast waited till I read it! I am always fascinated by Arnab's creative thougths....

you not gonna win the Noble Prize by "attacking" someone who doesn't simply care about anything or plays around too much! (yes you mentioned sometime ago you CAN win th noble prize). Instead try to use your self-proclaimed bigger brain in the lab and invent something that we can all use...

A better vibrator wouldn't be a bad start!

[Edited on 8-4-2004 by Orpheus]

Arnab
April 8, 2004, 12:23 PM
I am pretty sure you would have loved it Orpheus. :) And I am sure you wouldn't have felt offended or anything. We have a common brand of bantering humor that goes over many a guy's head.

Zunaid
April 8, 2004, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Arnab
I am pretty sure you would have loved it Orpheus. :) And I am sure you wouldn't have felt offended or anything. We have a common brand of bantering humor that goes over many a guy's head.

I frankly found it funny but we _are_ trying to maintain a G rating so I did what I must ... The burdens of responsibility...

al Furqaan
April 8, 2004, 01:03 PM
no, im not a palestinian, im simply a bengali like most of you all in here.

the 'we' i was refering to is the collective muslim ummah which in 1948 vowed to 'push the jews into the [Medeterannean] Sea.'

someone else asked why i think that the jews should have their own state. the reason is that i believe that any people who are disticnt from all others and are legitimately oppressed should have their own state. this includes not only worldwide jewry but also the palestinians, ethnic albanians in kosovo, kashmiris, chechnyans, muslims in the southern phillipines, kurds, christians in southern sudan, christians in east timor, and all non-bengali kuffar (chakma, etc.) in bangladesh as well.

allah (SWT) says in the holy quran: "O you men! surely We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honorable of you with Allah is the one among you most careful (of his duty); surely Allah is Knowing, Aware." (surah 49, ayat 13)
this means that humans were created with differences in order to learn and care about one another, not to act in a racist or ethno-centric manner.

afterall, our ancestors got a country (pakistan) because we knew that we would not get fair treatment in hindu-dominated india. then we found that we couldnt get fair treatment in a west-pakistan dominated country either. so we created bangladesh.

this may sound contradictory, but i dont really and truely believe in countries at all. they are just man made lines drawn all over the earth. in reality there are only 2 countries (with spiritual lines drawn on the earth): the islamic ummah and the land of kufr. the 2 should co-exist in peace, but i highly doubt that it will happen unless by divine will.

[Edited on 8-4-2004 by al Furqaan]

Orpheus
April 8, 2004, 01:43 PM
that was pretty funny Arnab.. just read it through my "connections"! Although I must admit I didn't love it... was pretty dissapointing if you know what I mean! It's funny how our posts have same similar theme..

Sorry Farqan and Matured Arnab! Spread the intelligence.....

Hoping for a peaceful palestine... I am out!

[Edited on 8-4-2004 by Orpheus : ahsdflhjsafdl]

[Edited on 8-4-2004 by Orpheus : I am stupid!]

chinaman
April 8, 2004, 06:52 PM
Dear Arnab

For a person who, spends hours reshearching complex issues like middle eastern history, history of the earth, mind boggling theories of science, tune in heartful debate about class of classical music, keeps a keen tab on modern technological advancements to name a few, how difficult it is to appreciate:

that we, the mods, are entrusted with some responsibilities?
that we, the mods, are entrusted to execute those responsibilities?
that we, the mods, vow to maintain this forum in certain way?
that we, the mods, urge our member's active help to keep the forum that way?
that we, the mods, intervene when we see potential breach of conducts?


How difficult it is for that person to be nice enough to acknowledge reader's inconvenience when called upon?

How difficult it is for that person to accept duly issued warning like a man?

How difficult it is for that person to avoid some bad words in a community setting?

How difficult it is for that person to curb the temptation from making personal attacks?

And above all, how difficult it is for that person to respect any differences of opinions?

Think about it. You might have been working very hard researching for the article. I'm positive you will find your cool in no time if you grant yourself a little break and relaxation after some tiring work. Thank you very much.

unmad
April 8, 2004, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by al Furqaan
you really spent a lot of time on this.

you gave the evidence and i said i would change my views but whatever wrong or illegal way the jews obtained palestine as their nation, they still derserved a nation. this is a complex issue and i think that we should negotiate for peace. im not saying that we should surrender but we should opt for a palestinian state with jerusalem as our capital. if we lay down our arms then perhaps they will give it to us. if not, then i dont know what to do...the situation will not solved until jesus (AS)returns.

here is what i think about your comment:

* there is a huge difference between asking for home for a homeless person and throughing the current inhabitant out in order to give home to a homeless person. if israel needs home, its them who should beg for it, not the arabs.
* your way of peace won't work on them. isrealis are bad to the root. they way the obtained it proves that, there is no way they will give palestine state peacefully.
if u go back from shakespare and oscer wild, whenever they need to portraited a villene, they showed it as jewes, every wonder why? (don't ask me for evedence, i know only "the marchant of venice", but i'm picking it from someone else).
* all they ever poposed about palestine state is like "swice cheese". a real country can't build on that.
*the only way i see the east west conflict ends is to saudi's have neuclear weapon. if u keep your door open, theaves will come. and the biggest fault of today's muslines is not being strong enough. so the only way to stay safe is to stay strong.

fab
April 9, 2004, 04:11 AM
They declared their independence based on military strategy, at a point when they felt confident enough to defeat the Arabs and drive armless Palestinians over the new "border" that they just made up out of thin air. The goal was to grab as much land as possible.
So now comes to Furqaan's point. Were the Arabs in the right when they invaded in 1948, and then in the 1967? These two failed wars resulted in more loss of land for them!

Anyhow, what I don't understand is, why Israel is permitted to build settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.. And why no one objects (apart from the suicide bombers).

sage
April 9, 2004, 06:43 AM
May I ask why do we care about middle east so much?:-/ We don't leave there. They call us miscin anyway. :P

Arnab
April 9, 2004, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by fab
They declared their independence based on military strategy, at a point when they felt confident enough to defeat the Arabs and drive armless Palestinians over the new "border" that they just made up out of thin air. The goal was to grab as much land as possible.
So now comes to Furqaan's point. Were the Arabs in the right when they invaded in 1948, and then in the 1967? These two failed wars resulted in more loss of land for them!



The Arab countries didn't "attack" in 1948. They actually retaliated to protect Palestinians from the Zionist military attacks. The Zionists, having declared their state, were driving Palestinians out of the malleable, ever-changing Israeli "border". The use of the term "border" is not really appropriate. Zionists were basically grabbing as much land as they could, by depopulating Palestinian villages through force, killing and driving away hundreds of thousands of armless native people who lived in those areas for hundreds of years.

There are three parties here. The arms-heavy zionists, the armless Palestinians and the armies from neighboring Arab countries.

The zionists had better local production of ammunition and weapons, had been preparing for a war for a long time and had a clear strategy.

The arab armies came from different countries with different agendas (some arab countries were more interested in grabbing the land than protecting the Palestinians). They were not united and their flow of arms and manpower was slow since their sources were situated in far away lands across the deserts.

What should have the Palestinians done? Let the zionists kill them and drive them away from their homeland without any fuss? What should have the Arab countries done? Suck their thumbs and let the zionists take over Palestine?

Anyhow, what I don't understand is, why Israel is permitted to build settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.. And why no one objects (apart from the suicide bombers).

That's an extremely naive view of reality, devoid of any sense of history.

Israel is "permitted" to build settlements because Israel has been backed by the US since late sixties. The UN did not give any permission to Israel to build settlements. Israel has been condemned in the UN innumerous times for her breach of agreements. But the US has saved her and sided with her every time. Over the years, the US vetoed 29 security council resolutions to protect Israel from the intervention of UN on bahalf of the rest of the world.

Suicide bombers are very late by-products (these didn't start until the 90s) of a system where Palestinians have been oppressed in inhuman conditions for more than five decades. Their protests have fallen to deaf ears for such a long time that some of them have taken the extermist, lunatic path of suicide.

[Edited on 9-4-2004 by Arnab]

Rubu
April 9, 2004, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by sage
May I ask why do we care about middle east so much?:-/ We don't leave there. They call us miscin anyway. :P

not that easy. as for people like us, who live in usa, we do get discreminated because of being muslim. they don't spares us because we are not arabs. we get the same treatment. and i believe this israel isssue is the base of everything. this is where the root of the problem lies. so, we can't leave it aside that easily.

al Furqaan
April 10, 2004, 12:14 AM
i completely hate it when arabs refer to us as 'miskeen.' it is true that many of them do this in the ME.

however racism is not a part of islam, and the prophet (saw) said, "he who does not concern himself with the affairs of other muslims is not a believer." this, sage, is why we are concerned about the middle east. after all, in the eyes of the muslim-hating, right wing christian conservatives, bengali or arab, black or white, a muslim equals a terrorist.

Arnab
April 10, 2004, 01:04 AM
I am not concerned about the Palestinians because they are muslims. I could care less about their religion as far as my take on the issue is concerned. Of course, religion plays a big role in this. You have angry, bigoted Jews on one side who think Israel is their "God given" country as written in the Old Testament and equally delusional muslims on the other side, some of whom become suicide bombers.

Religion, if it is not the root of all these evils, at least plays a very big part in deteriorating the geo-politico-economical crises between these two peoples. Religion and patriotism are the two most evil, brainwashing tools that powerful people use to rile up ignorant masses to accomplish their agenda.

I am concerned of the Palestinians because they have been unethically and inhumanly given the raw end of the deal.

I also support the European Jews, IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT, that is, when they were oppressed and persecuted in Europe and ultimately subjected to the holocaust.

But Zionism is a different story.

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Arnab]

Zunaid
April 10, 2004, 01:27 AM
Well said Arnab. Religion/Ideology et al should not come into the equation. Justice should.

Arnab
April 10, 2004, 01:49 AM
Look, all of us here are basically powerless people looking at this crisis with whatever info we have. This info has been fed to us by our biased news media, our religious preachers, etc.

We cannot effect a change with such distorted visions of reality. We need to inform ourselves. We need to be aware of history. We need to be more educated so that we can make better decisions.

Religion and biased news controlled by the people in power always have, do and will DISTORT our vision of reality. It's our job to stay informed as much as we can.

Only then can we, the powerless people, begin to affect the system to produce any kind of justice.

The cultivation of education, logic, reason, a sense of democracy and justice, ethics, etc. is essential.

Get rid of religious dogmas. Get rid of blind patriotism. Look at the real world. It's just some stupid factions of homo sapiens squabbling over scarce geo-politico-economical resources. The leaders of the factions are driving masses to fit their agenda.

There is another way of effecting changes in the system. That way is to become a part of the powerful people. But powerful people inherently don't care about justice or democracy. They are inherently amoral, without morality. They don't care if things turn out good or bad for the majority of humanity. All they seek is control. It has been proven over and over again throughout the course of history. Powerful people have their own distorted visions about how the system should be run. That system is totally incompatible with justice and democracy. Whatever changes you make being a powerful person, you can rest assured it's not going to be in the interest of the majority of people.

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Arnab]

sage
April 10, 2004, 05:24 AM
however racism is not a part of islam, and the prophet (saw) said, "he who does not concern himself with the affairs of other muslims is not a believer."


Thank you for the Hadid Al. I donot think calling a muslim brother 'Miskeen' actually show equality. It shows supremecy. Arabs think they are superior then subcontinent muslims people. I donot think they are better then us. Arabs forget the islamic teaching themselves. They are not concerned about us as other muslim. Forget subcontinent muslim. What about arab Muslims themselves? Shiet are fighting sunni, sunni's are killing Shiets. Look at the fruitless Iran Iraq war. According to the Hadid you described, Arabs are long departed from Islam. So if I am not concerned about them that doesn't hurt me in any way.

The muslims in the united states are suffering so much since sept 11. So many muslims got deported, lost their source of income, lost jobs, denied hiring . Did the 19 muslim hijacker ever thought about the millions of Muslim at all? Where they concerned about muslim families and their consequences at all.?

Take care!

Zunaid
April 10, 2004, 10:44 AM
Re sage's comments.

[Iran-Iraq war: Iranians are not Arabs]

Regarding the 19 "muslim" hijackers. They should have been concerned about both innocent muslim and non-muslim lives if they were true muslims.

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Zunaid]

fab
April 12, 2004, 09:56 PM
Sage,
Why should we care about the suffering of people who call us miskins, blackies etc? Coz we are human beings and have better morals than them. :)

There is another way of effecting changes in the system.
Another grassroot method is boycotting. It's been two years since I last bought something made by the Coca Cola Company, Nestle, Kimberely Clarke, Johnson & Johnson, Kraft, Revlon, Estee Lauder to name a few off the top of my head..

If anyone is interested, you can read about it in the links below:
link 1 (http://www.bigcampaign.org/index.asp)
link 2 (http://www.boycottisrael.org/)

If 1 billion muslims stopped buying the crap coming out of Israel or from companies that heavily invest there - How would that effect their economy?

Off topic:
ROFL. So Arnab thinks he can win a Nobel Prize??? HAHAHAHA in what? (Given his appalling manners and nonexistent diplomacy skill it obviously isn't the Peace prize)

Arnab
April 12, 2004, 10:39 PM
I don't think I said anything about winning a Nobel prize. Where did that come from?

BTW, Nobel peace prize is a joke. Henry Kissinger got that prize, for bombing people.

fab
April 13, 2004, 06:16 PM
Where did that come from?
Orphy mentioned it a few posts back.
BTW, Nobel peace prize is a joke. Henry Kissinger got that prize, for bombing people.
Don't be daft. The fact that Henry 'bottomless basket' Kissinger got a Nobel Peace prize is a joke. But that doesn't totally nullify the prestige of the award given the long long list of genuinely deserved laureates such as Mother Theresa, Mandela, Doctors without borders, Arafat/Peres/Rabin (who actually did make some progress) etc.

reverse_swing
April 13, 2004, 06:43 PM
they try to balance this but in fact it has lost it's credibility long before

fab
April 13, 2004, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by reverse_swing
they try to balance this but in fact it has lost it's credibility long before
Oh really. Perhaps you would care to outline who received a Nobel Peace prize that really did not deserve it (apart from Kissinger). Is the percentage of people who fall in this category higher than say, 5-10%?

Shubho
April 13, 2004, 07:18 PM
How do you then explain the following:

Yasser Arafat - former terrorist
Yitzhak Rabin - former terrorist
Shimon Peres - former terrorist
Anwar al Sadat - military leader who was virtually forced to sign a peace accord
Menachem Begin - former terrorist
Le Duc Tho - military leader more famous for killing people
Henry Kissenger - mass murderer
Willem De Klerk - lifelong racist turned dove
The ILO - what do they have to do with peace?
Kofi Annan - what the hell did he ever achieve?
Medcins sans Frontieres - they broker peace deals?

Percentage-wise these names constitute about 10-15% of all winners.

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by Shubho]

reverse_swing
April 13, 2004, 07:31 PM
what about these highly controversial Nobel Peace Prize Winners?? Can u give me any valid reason considering their life history?

SHIMON PERES (FM of Israel) - ?

YITZHAK RABIN (PM of Israel)- ?

WILLEM DE KLERK (President of the South Africa) - what about his past history?

AUNG SAN SUU KYI - totally political reason

MIKHAIL SERGEYEVICH GORBACHEV - same

DALAI LAMA -same

ANWAR SADAT(President of Egypt) -?

MENACHEM BEGIN (PM of Israel) -?

reverse_swing
April 13, 2004, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by Shubho
How do you then explain the following:

Yasser Arafat - former terrorist


If Arafat is terrorist then all our 71's freedom fighters are terrorists too.

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by reverse_swing]

fab
April 13, 2004, 07:38 PM
For starters, the nobel Peace prize isn't solely meant for "PEACE" per se, as mentioned in their website:

"Nobel simply stated that prizes be given to those who, during the preceding year, "shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind" and that one part be given to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." "

It doesn't mention anywhere that the laureates need to be lifelong saints or
buddha-esque paragons of virtue. I believe the main objective is to acknowledge substantial achievements made within the previous year.

Yasser Arafat - former terrorist
Yitzhak Rabin - former terrorist
Shimon Peres - former terrorist

Can you deny that the above three did not do "the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." in the preceeding year they received the award?

The ILO - what do they have to do with peace?
Medcins sans Frontieres - they broker peace deals?

Can you deny that the above two orgs didn't "confer the greatest benefit
on mankind"?

Kofi Annan - what the hell did he ever achieve?
So you think Annan and the UN didn't do "the most work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."? Tell me you are joking.

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by fab]

reverse_swing
April 13, 2004, 07:47 PM
Did Mr. Kafi take any initiative to stop America's Iraq attack?

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by reverse_swing]

Rubu
April 13, 2004, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by reverse_swing
Did Mr. Kafi take any initiative to stop America's Iraq attack?

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by reverse_swing]

Mr. Kafi is a joke, and so is UN aka

UNfair.

giving noball (please, its not typo this time) price for peace is also a joke for most of the time. i read these line somewhere but forgot where, u might find it relavant:

If u kill one person, u are a brutal murderer.
If u kill 10 persons, u are a dirty maniac.
But if u kill 10,000 or more, human civilization grantees u that u'll called for the geneva peace convention.

[not exact wording, but the same theme]

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by AgentSmith : adding the disclaimer!]

Zunaid
April 14, 2004, 05:00 PM
“A single death is a tragedy; a million
deaths is a statistic.” - Stalin

Nasif
April 16, 2004, 03:54 PM
Although the article is old, I thought it might be worthwhile to put it here. Might shed some light on who are the real racist and barbaric people.

The article is from:
http://www.mediamonitors.net/khodr49.html

As it is very long, I am just posting only small part here.

<hr>
<font size=4><b>Sharon to Peres: "We Control America"</font>
Congressional Pandering to Israel proves him Right</b>
by Mohamed Khodr

On October 3, 2001, I.A.P. News reported that according to Israel Radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael an acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us. "Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America."

"The Israelis control the policy in the congress and the senate."

-- Senator Fullbright, Chair of Senate Foreign Relations Committee: 10/07/1973 on CBS' "Face the Nation".

"I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy [in the Middle East] not approved by the Jews..... terrific control the Jews have over the news media and the barrage the Jews have built up on congressmen .... I am very much concerned over the fact that the Jewish influence here is completely dominating the scene and making it almost impossible to get congress to do anything they don't approve of. The Israeli embassy is practically dictating to the congress through influential Jewish people in the country"

-----Sec. of State John Foster Dulles quoted on p.99 of Fallen Pillars by Donald Neff

The long history of bipartisan Congressional support for Israel led former Secretary of State James Baker to call the Congress "The Little Knesset" after Israel's Knesset (parliament) in Jerusalem. Congress's embarrassing and unpatriotic display of allegiance to a foreign country that is dependent on American largesse and support is the unknown scandal to the American people. With the media's strong, biased and sympathetic portrayal of Israel while simultaneously denying any opposing view of Israel or human pictures and stories of the endless suffering of Palestinians, its no wonder that we the American people are so unaware of the true face of Israel. Thus shockingly but not surprisingly only 4 % of the American people are aware of Israel's 34 year brutal military occupation of the Palestinian people.

Only at times of war and threat upon the U.S. does our Senate ever exhibit the strong bipartisanship support of America it regularly provides Israel. Despite our current crisis in airline security, Congressional political bickering continued for weeks between Republicans and Democrats placing American lives at risk while foreign aid to Israel was quick and automatic (about $6 Billion), even at a time the Congress is telling us of budget deficits and lack of money for the unemployed American workers. As an American I am outraged at the blind historical allegiance our Senators have provided Israel while they neglect many of our pressing domestic issues such as airline security, Social Security and Medicare Reform, Education Reform, Health Insurance for needy Americans, Money for Dilapidated Schools, and Prescription Coverage for our Elderly. Our Congress operates on the premise that most Americans are disinterested in foreign policy thus they have a vacuum to provide Israel with blank checks and our latest F-16 fighter jets that Israel uses to kill Palestinian civilians. They depend on our media to keep us uninformed and distracted with Sports, Harry Potter, and scandals.

During America's war on terrorism, President Bush and Secretary Powell have worked hard to keep a fragile coalition among the 55 Arab and Muslim nations. To do that they've finally listened to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, other European and Arab leaders and reengaged in the MidEast peace process. Bush has ignored the Israeli Palestinian conflict since taking office thus allowing Sharon to reconquer and reinvade Palestinian territories during this Intifada that has cost over 800 Palestinian lives and 175 Israeli lives with hundreds of Palestinian homes demolished.

For the first time Bush uttered the word a "Palestinian state" (is it conceivable that the President of the most powerful nation on earth doesn't even dare utter these two words). Powell has repeatedly criticized Israel for its assassination policy, its house demolitions, its invasion of Palestinian controlled territory, while he and Bush have repeatedly asked Sharon to pull out of Palestinian territory, Sharon simply ignored them and even compared them to Nazi appeasers. None of Sharon's rebuttals of the American President during this crisis even generated any criticism from our brave Congress. No one can imagine any other country able to tell its benefactor "take your demands and shove it."

Now the stage is set for the much awaited Powell speech, a new initiative on the Middle East on Monday, November 19, in Kentucky. It's been billed as a historic speech. According to the British Telegraph site (telegraph.co.uk) on November 18, Powell's original aim was to set out the administration's vision for the creation of a Palestinian state, including complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank, to be followed by peace negotiations on "final status" issues such as borders, refugees and the fate of Jerusalem. He has been encouraged by signs that moderate Arab states will recognize Israel and its continued right to exist if the Palestinians decide to do so themselves, an essential element of any peace agreement. Even Iran's long standing opposition to the Peace Process was dropped when last week President Mohammad Khatami of Iran said: "If the Palestinians accept this issue we will respect the wishes of the Palestinian nation."

However, and as is customary whenever there is a possibility of Israel being criticized, the Pro Israeli forces come out in force to pressure the White House to tone down or modify its wording. Due to intense pressure from Congress, the media, and the powerful American Jewish lobby, the White House has intervened to tone down Powell's speech on the Middle East planned for November 19. President George W Bush is believed to have blocked Powell from putting too much pressure on Israel to make concessions in the search for peace. As a result, according to Washington officials the watered down speech is "less of a new initiative and more of a general call for people to buck up their ideas".

<i><a href=http://www.mediamonitors.net/khodr49.html>Continue...</a></i>

Arnab
April 16, 2004, 04:12 PM
Palestine:

Religion ---> blindness in reason ---> stupid barbarism

Israel:

Geopolitical objectives ---> denial of morality ---> methodical barbarism

----------

The methodical usually wins against the stupid.

Mridul
April 16, 2004, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by Arnab
Palestine:

Religion ---> blindness in reason ---> stupid barbarism

Israel:

Geopolitical objectives ---> denial of morality ---> methodical barbarism

----------

The methodical usually wins against the stupid.


You do not know...who will win....God Knows Best

mzia
April 21, 2004, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by reverse_swing
Did Mr. Kafi take any initiative to stop America's Iraq attack?

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by reverse_swing]

Yes he boldly uttered that if it not stop he will not contest for next term selection. I don’t know where I got it…

Nasif
May 11, 2004, 09:34 PM
<b>General Who Made Anti-Islam Remark Tied to POW Case</b>
By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army general under investigation for
anti-Islamic remarks has been linked by U.S. officials to the Iraqi prisoner
abuse scandal, which experts warned could touch off new outrage overseas.

A Senate hearing into the abuse of Iraqi prisoners was told on Tuesday that Lt.
Gen. William Boykin, an evangelical Christian under review for saying his God
was superior to that of the Muslims, briefed a top Pentagon (news - web sites)
civilian official last summer on recommendations on ways military interrogators
could gain more intelligence from Iraqi prisoners.

Critics have suggested those recommendations amounted to a senior-level go-ahead
for the sexual and physical abuse of prisoners, possibly to "soften up"
detainees before interrogation -- a charge the Pentagon denies.

Congressional aides and Arab-American and Muslim groups said any involvement by
Boykin could spark new concern among Arabs and Muslims overseas the U.S. war on
terrorism is in fact a war on Islam.

"This will be taken as proof that what happened at Abu Ghraib (prison) is
evidence of a broader culture of dehumanizing Arabs and Muslims, based on the
American understanding of the innate superiority of Christendom," said Chris
Toensing, editor of Middle East Report, a U.S.-based quarterly magazine.

One Senate aide, who asked not to be identified, said any involvement by Boykin
could be explosive. "Even if he knew about the abuse, that would be a big deal,"
he said.

Boykin has declined comment, and defense officials could not say what the extent
of his involvement or knowledge about the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners might
have been.

Boykin touched off a firestorm last October after giving speeches while in
uniform in which he referred to the war on terrorism as a battle with "Satan"
and said America had been targeted "because we're a Christian nation." He said
later he was not anti-Islam or any other religion.

President Bush (news - web sites) distanced himself from Boykin's remarks, but
the Pentagon said it would not fire the general, who played a role in the 1993
clash with Somali warlords and the ill-fated hostage rescue attempt in Iran in
1980.

CALLS FOR REASSIGNMENT

Hussein Ibish, communications director for the Arab American Anti-Discrimination
Committee, said his group and others had repeatedly called for Boykin to be
reassigned to a less sensitive job until the Pentagon inspector general
completes his investigation of Boykin's remarks.

Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites) Chairman John Warner and
congressional Democrats have also urged Boykin to step aside, but the Pentagon
has defended his right to free speech.

Defense officials said the IG investigation, begun last fall, was nearly done
and a report could be issued next month.

"I'm not saying Boykin is directly responsible. ... But there is a collective
failure here," Ibish said. "There is a tolerance in our society, in our
government, in our media for hateful rhetoric when directed against Arabs and
Muslims.

"It definitely contributes to a climate in which these young MPs apparently felt
it was ... OK to abuse Muslim and Arab men like this."

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations, chided
the Pentagon for not acting promptly to discipline Boykin and the delayed
engagement of top military leaders on the prisoner abuse scandal.

"It creates a climate in which ... the perpetrators believe they're carrying out
the policies of those above them, whether those policies are explicit or not,"
Hooper said.

<hr>
Source: <a href=http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5109973>Reuters</a>

[Edited on 12-5-2004 by nasif]

fab
May 11, 2004, 10:34 PM
Nasif
I understand that you are trying to highlight the other barbarians who reside on this planet with us. But that is beside the point of what was intended to be discussed. What others are like have little to do with most of the points on my list..

I recently read in a messageboard somewhere, many Americans' response to the barbarism shown by the their army. It was basically 'but but these people were working for Saddam, and they tortured other iraqis too'... THAT is irrelevant, wouldn't you say?

Nasif
May 11, 2004, 10:56 PM
I agree with you. Barbarism cannot be justified with any rationalization. "They worked for saddam" is not a reason. In my posts I was trying to show that barbarism is a human psyche issue, it will show its evil claws when ever it can find a suitable host. It is not limited to any religion or race.