Mid east

[scout 0]

i believe that it is a struggle between western world and the muslim world about power, and if u think it was always like that:

greece which was taken by Rome which was finally taken by muslim warlords, which was defeated by european countries, who in turn handed the power to the USA first which was challanged by Japan and share afterwards power with the USSR and after the demise of the USSR there is a vaccum in power. battles of power always exist, and its my belief that the muslim world is under going a stage of "renesance", a time which always was very bloody.

[Gaswell 1]

Could someone inform my Euro Trash ass as to 1) whether the average Israeli really believe that the current anti-terrorist activities will eliminate the suicide bombings, and 2) whether the average Palestinian really believe that the continued suicide bombings will really bring peace to the region.

@Avon, ACEJim et al.:

Hope you've not abandoned this discussion. It's been most enlightening.

Edit: Removed one biased remark.

[scout 0]

as to your first question.

first of all it did succeed for the short run, it lowered incidents from about 30-60 incidents (shooting, suicide bombing, etc.) to a mere 5 a week. and ppl here, unfortunatly , dont think much further.

and in any way, sitting and waiting for some1 to do something didnt prove itself did it?

the second question, its a good one. i'd like to know myself

[second_draw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 13 2002,00:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ill just quote what Jihad and Hamas leader said:

"jews would be allowed to live in freed palestine, only if the act according to Isalmic rules.....there is no place for any jewish self governing"<span id='postcolor'>

This is so stupid that it makes me laugh. It's like the USSR stating, "the USA can submit to the USSR if it follows communism"

[Gaswell 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 12 2002,03:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">as to your first question.

first of all it did succeed for the short run, it lowered incidents from about 30-60 incidents (shooting, suicide bombing, etc.) to a mere 5 a week. and ppl here, unfortunatly , dont think much further.

and in any way, sitting and waiting for some1 to do something didnt prove itself did it?

the second question, its a good one. i'd like to know myself<span id='postcolor'>

But doesn't the recrution to Palestinian terrorism increase as more moderate Palestinians feel that their normal lives are disrupted?

That's essentially the same for the Israeli; aren't more moderate Israeli willing to go hard-line against the Palestinians as they see their normal lives disrupted?

How are you ever gonna get peace? I understand the Israeli desire to take out terrorists, but doesn't the IDF understand the emotional consequences of their reportedly heavy-handed approach? Doesn't the IDF intelligence understand that the current approach only serve to reinforce Arafat's symbolic position as an elected Palestinian leader?

How about the suicide bombers? What are they trying to achieve? The Israeli aren't likely to pack up and leave. Nor are a few disillusioned suicide bombers likely to wipe out the entire state of Israel, as sanctioned by the UN.

Frankly, I don't see any hope for either party. You're probably gonna lose your children and loved ones today, tomorrow, forever. But - hey - I'm Norwegian, and since the oil prices rise during Middle East conflicts I should be more than happy, right?

Wrong. I'm no religious man, and I've been rough about a few characters in my time, but there's no excuse for treating people badly who doesn't deserve it. I just hate to see y'all grind yourselves deeper down into the whole mess you're in.

[scout 0]

first of all i want to correct something:

the IDF is no policy maker. it an army, it execute orders from the government.

there is a dynamic evolution in democratic states leadership:

usually moderates rule, but as a situation escalates, the government turn more and more extreme. that what happened in israel in the past 8 years.

now on the other hand, leadership in totalitarian countries (and for that matter i see the PA as one) doesnt change unless there is a coup.

i really think that at the moment Arafat will be removed israel will return to the cycle and more moderate leader will be chosen, and that'll result in some kind of agreement, though im not overly optimistic about that point.

this cycle of violence has started in the late 1800's and i dont it'll end soon, but will intesify instead.

[P8ntM98 0]

I didnt read every page and I dont know if anyone has said this but how can the US expect support from Israel on our war on terrorism when we dont support theirs! I think Israel should be in Palestine and they're doing a good job of it because they've gotten lots of people involved with those Palestinian militias that are responsible for the bombings and attacks on Israel. I hope Bush will change his mind and Powell too and support Israel.

[Gaswell 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 12 2002,04:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i really think that at the moment Arafat will be removed israel will return to the cycle and more moderate leader will be chosen, and that'll result in some kind of agreement, though im not overly optimistic about that point.<span id='postcolor'>

I have no idea about whether the world would be better off with or without Mr. Arafat; however, I cannot ignore him being voted as the democratic Palestinian leader.

From a hopefully neutral viewpoint I must say that Mr. Sharon doesn't really strike me as the best peace negotiator Israel could produce.

You surely understand that someone will replace Mr. Arafat, should he come to an untimely end (or not as untimely, depending on your view). While he may be unable or unwilling to directly control every Palestinian fraction group - now more than ever, at the very least partially because of Israeli destruction of Palestinian infrastructure - he remains the symbolic figurehead of the Palestinian struggle against the Israeli occupation (or whatever you wanna call it), and the legally voted leader of the Palestinians. How many terror groups wouldn't view the death, or deportation, of Mr. Arafat as a reason to continue their actions?

The recent handling of Mr. Arafat has been downright amateurish in this regard; if the Israeli government intended to boost his standing in the Muslim and internation (European) community they've really succeeded.

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (P8ntM98 @ April 13 2002,03:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I didnt read every page and I dont know if anyone has said this but how can the US expect support from Israel on our war on terrorism when we dont support theirs! I think Israel should be in Palestine and they're doing a good job of it because they've gotten lots of people involved with those  Palestinian militias that are responsible for the bombings and attacks on Israel. I hope Bush will change his mind and Powell too and support Israel.<span id='postcolor'>

Please, let's not bring the US so called "war on terrorism" into this. You will turn a rational discussion of events in the middle east into a ridiculous back and forth about how stupid, hypocritical and morally wrong the US policies are.

Since September 11 the US has been very quick to label who is and isnt terrorists. Basically the US has no right to be involved in the conflict between Israel and Palestine (well, except they wouldn't want their favourite foot in the door to the oil nations harmed).

Will the US be attacking Northern Ireland to get the terrorists there? And I notice with all of his talk of "evil nations" George W has been awfully careful not to mention China, despite it being a communist entity. How many other countries could take a downed US spy plane and then say to the USA "you can have it back when were good and ready" and the US humbly accept this.

Enjoy your last few years as the worlds big brother America, it's quite obvious that for good or ill, China is going to be the next major world power.

Sorry about that, but America sticking it's nose into world affairs that don't concern it under the guise of war on terrorism really pises me off. Let's get this debate back on track, I'll shut up now.

[scout 0]

one correction:

Arafat is democraticly elected as president Mubarak is democraticly elected in egypt, means they arent.

there is much discord behind the scenes althought the palestinians are careful not to show it, as i said before, he is leader for life, or until some1 will pull him off and take his place. simple as that. Sharon came to power only after moderate leaders failed to come to terms with Arafat, which means that sharon will be replaced by the people of israel. Arafat though, wont, there is no democracy in the PA system.

[Longinius 1]

"Arafat is democraticly elected as president Mubarak is democraticly elected in egypt, means they arent.

there is much discord behind the scenes althought the palestinians are careful not to show it, as i said before, he is leader for life, or until some1 will pull him off and take his place. simple as that. Sharon came to power only after moderate leaders failed to come to terms with Arafat, which means that sharon will be replaced by the people of israel. Arafat though, wont, there is no democracy in the PA system."

You know, Hitler was elected to. Sometimes, democracy just isnt that great.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 13 2002,05:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Arafat is democraticly elected as president Mubarak is democraticly elected in egypt, means they arent.<span id='postcolor'>

Some thoughts on Arafat:

I am surprised that Sharon says that Arafat is the main bad guy. Arafat has never (at least not the recent years) openly supported terrorist acts. Actually he usually condemnes suicide bombings and similar things.. I have the feeling that he is a moderate palestinian leader but that he doesn't control the more radical organisations. So I don't see what good removing him would do.

Another side of removing Arafat : - How can you be so selfish? Don't you understand that by criticizing Arafat you are undermining the authority of the Nobel Peace Prize committee?!?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 13 2002,09:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Arafat is democraticly elected as president Mubarak is democraticly elected in egypt, means they arent.

there is much discord behind the scenes althought the palestinians are careful not to show it, as i said before, he is leader for life, or until some1 will pull him off and take his place. simple as that. Sharon came to power only after moderate leaders failed to come to terms with Arafat, which means that sharon will be replaced by the people of israel. Arafat though, wont, there is no democracy in the PA system."

You know, Hitler was elected to. Sometimes, democracy just isnt that great.<span id='postcolor'>

Wow, excellent comparison. That was a crosspersonification which was totally unecessary. This is basically implying ...well you know yourself!!!!

Anyway, Arafat is the legal representative of a nation (or an ethnic minority if you wish). I see absolutely no reason of questioning this position he holds.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 13 2002,15:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyway, Arafat is the legal representative of a nation (or an ethnic minority if you wish). I see absolutely no reason of questioning this position he holds.<span id='postcolor'>

I think that it was a part of the Oslo agreement that the Palestinian Authority had to be democraticaly elected...

Not that it matters.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

in the year 1974 at the arabic conference the PLO was declared as the only legal representative of the Palestinian nation, and therefore respected by the 'Weltsicherheitsrat', I dont know how to translate that but it is the legal (judicative) body of the UNO or UN. By the way, this vote was repeated once again on Wednesday night in connection with a resolution by the UN (Mr. Annan) and accepted by 14 out of 15 members (Syria did refuse to vote). I guess that is legal enough!

source

Head-lines

president of the state of Israel Mosche Kazaw yesterday said  that Europe with its criticism of the Israeli offense would basically provoke and encourage terrorism (ouch!!!

)

[scout 0]

i say again, there was no democratic process, and i was refering to the so called democracy in the PA its like Bashar Assad was elected by 99.6% of the voters......right.........

the rein of Arafat is a rein of terror and corruption even towards his people. between the years '98-'00 there was an junrest caused by the high corruption in the PA. a survey done in '99 determines that 80% of jerusalems palestinians dont want to give up their citizenship and be ruled by the PA.

etc etc.

the fact that Arafat was recognized by the UN as the sole representative of the palestinian people was, maybe, because there wasnt any large organization to do it. but again, it doesnt meant it is a democraticly elected. its as vicious and totalitarian as Syria or Iraq for that matter.

does the Fact that Arafat isnt supporting openly terrorist organizations mean that he doesnt at all.

the el-fatah and it Tanzim and El-Aqsa martyrs wings are HIS men, and the fact he allows them to opperate says it all.

more over, the control Arafat has over its people is absolute, and he had shown it for scores of times.

Arafat may be moderatem compared to Assad, or Saddam Hussein, but it seems that his goals havent been changed since the late '60.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

stupid bug, I know that scout has posted a comment before me, but I can still post and mine can be seen first! What the hell is that?  

anway, democracy is not a must! But this is just bureaucracy. Be happy that there is Arafat, otherwise you would have even more extreme movements driving the nation!

[scout 0]

no? doesnt it?

are we encouraging un-democratic governments to rise? will it be 4 the good of the people?

the living standart actually droped down in the years after Oslo, because the corruption of the PA. here is an example:

someone wants to import construction materials to beth-lehem. he needs to pay jibril rajub's men for the right to leave the city, to import his stuff, to build etc. etc.

its typical, u intervene of a "noble" cause and then you leave everything behind, doesnt it matter to u what will happen next?

im sorry about  this but its just what any1 have done with almost every country, and it really sucks.

edit: i really would be more happy that the Hamas will rule. at least will have an enemy with clear positoin towards up. and maybe then u'll get off our backs.

this way Arafat says one thing, and u seem to believe him, but does something entirely else.

[hneel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 12 2002,01:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ill just quote what Jihad and Hamas leader said:

"jews would be allowed to live in freed palestine, only if the act according to Isalmic rules.....there is no place for any jewish self governing"<span id='postcolor'>

These islamic rules imply that jews (and christians) are free to have their own religion. Remember that in the last centuries jews and christians were never persecuted in muslim countries. Religious persecution was a catholic thing. When the catholics (re-)conquered spain from the muslims, the jews had to flee together with the muslims. (some ended up in protestant holland).

PS, not that I agree with the views of hamas. I think that both hamas and israel are wrong. Both nations want *all* of the country. Neither will succeed. There can only be a lasting peace when both nations agree to share the country.

[PLRSniper 3]

...

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (hneel @ April 14 2002,00:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 12 2002,01:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ill just quote what Jihad and Hamas leader said:

"jews would be allowed to live in freed palestine, only if the act according to Isalmic rules.....there is no place for any jewish self governing"<span id='postcolor'>

These islamic rules imply that jews (and christians) are free to have their own religion. Remember that in the last centuries jews and christians were never persecuted in muslim countries. Religious persecution was a catholic thing.<span id='postcolor'>

Burp:

The situation of Jews in Arab lands reached a low point in the 19th century. Jews in most of North Africa (including Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Morocco) were forced to live in ghettos. In Morocco, which contained the largest Jewish community in the Islamic Diaspora, Jews were made to walk barefoot or wear shoes of straw when outside the ghetto. Even Muslim children participated in the degradation of Jews, by throwing stones at them or harassing them in other ways. The frequency of anti-Jewish violence increased, and many Jews were executed on charges of apostasy. Ritual murder accusations against the Jews became commonplace in the Ottoman Empire.

By the twentieth century, the status of the dhimmi in Muslim lands had not significantly improved. H.E.W. Young, British Vice Consul in Mosul, wrote in 1909:

The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed.

From The Treatment of Jews in Arab/Islamic Countries, By Mitchell Bard

That was in the 19th century. As for the 20th, it was easy to guess:

The danger for Jews became even greater as a showdown approached in the UN over partition in 1947. The Syrian delegate, Faris el-Khouri, warned: "Unless the Palestine problem is settled, we shall have difficulty in protecting and safeguarding the Jews in the Arab world."

More than a thousand Jews were killed in anti-Jewish rioting during the 1940's in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Yemen. This helped trigger the mass exodus of Jews from Arab countries.

Many of these Jews indeed fled to Israel.

I don't really have the time to engage in these debates anymore but I can still afford adding a reality check every now and then.  

[Guest]

First, I would like to say welcome back to Avon.

Now back to the topic:

I have to agree with hneel - Christianity is the only real agressive expansive book-religion per se. Neither Isalam nor Judaism has the concept and ambitions of 'converting heathens'.

An Iranian friend of mine has an interesting theory of why islamistic fundamentalism is so popular these days:

Islam is a young religion. According to their calender it is now year 1422. If you look at for instance Christianity in the year 1422 A.D, you can see that christian fundamentalism was very popular back then. During that period (1200-1500 AD) we had all sort of nasty church business in Europe. Witches were burned, we had the Spanish inquisition and we went off to crusades...

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 14 2002,15:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">we had the Spanish inquisition<span id='postcolor'>

I loved it!

Oh............... the other one.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 14 2002,15:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Neither Isalam nor Judaism has the concept and ambitions of 'converting heathens'.<span id='postcolor'>

Did Islam just waltz into Africa and Europe 1300 years ago?

[Guest]

That was military/political expansion, not religious. For example when the Turks took the southern Balkans, the locals had a choice of converting, they were not forced. Of course the ones that did got tax reliefs and other nice things... so after a couple of hundred years of occupation, even the most stubborn converted.

If you look at European occupations from that time, you will see that we weren't that nice.