Gaza: Shock, Awe and Uncertainty 2006

Peace in this part of the world will only be obtained when people are willing to think outside the boxes of conventional thinking that has blinkered their views. Your piece is entirely conventional in this respect. I sense that trying to explain the two sides that can make peace would be a wasted effort here.

But follow some of the other articles where you find my comments, or look at some of my own articles, and if you are willing to look outside the conventional boxes of thought, you will see the dove of peace seeking release.

[And allow Palestinians directly descended to those "expelled" in the 1948 war to return and live peacefully in the newly formed Palestinian state.]

Inventing history vis-a-vis Israel has been such a tradition in the Islamic and the useful idiot media of the West. It is the Arab state's who attacked Israel and called to Muslims to leave their homes to avoid casaulties. So the Muslims left for neighboring countries.

And how about those equally big number of Jews who were expelled by the Arabs countries in the 1940s with their properties looted and confiscated. Where should they go? Is Mr. Bailey also insisting that those jews and their descendent be returned to the Arab countries.

The best solution is the Muslim world unequivocally accept the Jewish state which is due for a way long time. Then only Israel could be negotiated to return to its '67 border. The second thing is take all Jews from the Arab countries to Israel and All Muslims leave the Israeli territory. So long Koran and Prophet saying to kill the Jews completely exists on earth, Muslims can never leave with the Jews in mutual respect, dignity and harmony. Mr Bailey should read the History of Islam and Islamic theology ad prophet Muhammad's barbaric treatments of the Jews before writing such articles. Else, it remains a 'blind man's seeing the elephant'.

First of all MA Khan you obviously haven't read the link I submitted about the Arabs expelled in the 1948 war. The article the link points to proves that 70% of the Arabs displaced in the war of independence were expelled By Israel in one way or another, and blows your theory of Arab warnings out of the water. IT says something like 10% left because they were warned by Arab countries... don't you think invasion plans are kept secret?

Also, for your information Jews already have a right of return to Israel; any Jew anywhere in the world has automatic rights to immigrate to Israel if he/she should so choose. So how about they [those displaced in decades of conflict] do that if they want to.

And as for the Koran calling to murder Jews meaning Muslim's can never live alongside them in peace. Only the hard-line Salafi and Wahabi strands of Islamic thought interpret that section of the Koran literally, and funnily enough those hard-line strands are more common where Muslim's have a history of war and oppression. If peace was achieved after all the Palestinian deaths, do you honestly think the Palestinians would want to go back to war and lose thousands more friends and relatives? I don't.

And in the context of my article, it makes no difference how many Arab states accept Israel's right to exist. As long as the Palestinian coalition -which looks close to becoming a reality- accepts Israel, and early reports indicate that they will.

So, I maintain my thesis:
There will be no peace in the Middle East until Israel is forced to commit fully to this end.

show me how to clap with one hand

:)

if it can be done then i will buy this:


There will be no peace in the Middle East until Israel is forced to commit fully to this end.

OH Crap! I changed that after I pasted from word, but screen crashed, I had to paste again and I forgot to change it the second time.

What I meant as my thesis is: There will be no peace between Iraelis and Palestinians until Israel is forcedto fully commit to this aim. As you will see if you click on the embedded link.

OH Crap! I changed that after I pasted from word, but screen crashed, I had to paste again and I forgot to change it the second time.

What I meant as my thesis: there will be no peace between Iraelis and Palestinians until Israel is forced to fully commit to this end. As you will see if you click on the embedded link.

Hey Liam,

I'm the Israeli on this list. You want to talk about solutions, talk to me and stop parroting the Arab line. It's embarrassing to see a grown man squawk like a useful idiot. Keep it up and I'll have to bring a cracker for you when I visit this article.

If you are going to attempt to prescribe solutions for us Jews, you might want to get to know who the hell you're talking to and understand our streams of thought, as you take the trouble to understand Moslem streams of thought.

First of all, a question for you.

In the State of Israel, are you dealing with a Jewish state, or a Zionist one? Something for you to ponder...

ruvy:

you scoundrel:)

actually, in hindi/urdu i'd say tum badmaash!

Liam, brave of you to wade into the murky troubled waters.
MA Khan - assume that you have nothing to say about Deir Yassin? Or indeed the other massacres and expulsions that happened in 1948?
Judeo-Islamic relations deteriorated in the 20th century, curiously just as Judeo-Christian relations improved, especially post the establishment of Israel, and the geopolitical great game that developed with the loss of formal colonies in the ME. There are enough history books that record that process.
Also, Jews were so "expelled" from the "Muslim" countries that they continued to occupy high political office (cabinet positions) in Iran until the 1970s, when the "Revolution" installed a fundamentalist regime? Iran wasn't the exception either.
Btw, check the PASSIA website for detailed records of demographic changes in the Palestinian populations in Israel/territories.
Ruvy - could you explain hear the distinction between the "Jewish" state vs the "Zionist" one? Isn't the establishment of the Israeli state by humans in itself contrary to orthodox Jewish opinions? Isn't the right to aliyeh for all Jews but refusal of "right to return" to Palestinian refugees or their descendants intended to ensure Israel as a "Jewish" state?

ana:

ruvy did give a detailed response to jewish vs. zionist state couple of days back in a response to a query of mine to khan (who declined to reply:))

you can search and save him the bother to re-paste it here...try either alamgir or khan's recent articles

First of all, the reason I didn't answer your comment was your: "I sense that trying to explain the two sides that can make peace would be a wasted effort here." gave the impression that you were totally dismissive of my obviously valid viewpoints. I have had many debates with people who blatantly disagree with me and are closed to my arguments. I have found the debate can go on forever and get absolutely nowhere.
As I am only 23 and started off with an open mind, I can still admit I am wrong when presented with a strong enough opposing argument. When I started freelancing I was a firm supporter of Bush/Blair and the War on Terror. After my initial research all this changed.

Now, I want to apologise if my articles have given the impression that I hold Israel's entire Jewish civilian population responsible for Israel's ill-advise actions over the decades. I do not. I believe --ads the UN did 1947-- that after the holocaust Jews were entitled to their own state in a place historically tied to their religion. I just find it ludicrous that they committed acts of ethnic cleansing to increase its size.

To your question:
The Zionist movement was largely responsible for the creation of the Jewish state, and after it was created their military wings formed the IDF. However, my answer is it cannot be a Zionist state, as Zionism is a movement within Judaism, created to fight for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Israel and to defend it after the aim was achieved. In saying that, the reports I have read say that Judaism is currently overwhelmingly Zionist, and that secular or anti-Zionist movements are rare in modern Judaism. So your question was similar to what came first the chicken or the egg.

I am learning all the time. For instance yesterday I learned that the cradle of the rock, the 3rd holiest site for Muslim's has been left under Islamic rule by Israel, I thought Israel had taken it from them. This was factored in to my overall view of the conflict. But when I am criticised for not showing balance in my articles on these matters--always by people arguing just as vehemently from the other side--, I think to myself. I do show balance, you will note I haven't quoted Israel fired ex amount of artillery shells without also saying how many rocket attacks the Palestinians launched. Or mentioned Palestinian death tolls without comparing them to Israeli death tolls.

The problem is not my balance but the balance of the conflict. I.e. Israel's superior military and advanced weaponry--and its willingness to use it in civilian areas-- versus a few separate resistance movements with only basic weapons, forced to blow themselves up for maximum impact. I.e. "Israel fired between 7000 and 9000 heavy artillery shells into Gaza, killing 80 Palestinians in six months between its withdrawal in September 2005 and March 2006. Palestinian rocket attacks are estimated at 1000 for the same period. A further 5100 Israeli artillery rounds were fired tit for tat between the end of Mar. 2006 and the end of May 2006, with 800 Qassam rocket attacks." For example: "IDF spokesman said last week that there had been 157 rockets fired from the strip in November- attacks which killed two Israelis in Sderot. Despite the 105 Palestinians killed, according to medical staff quoted by the Palestinian maan news agency." You tell me where the balance is in this conflict, and because of this Israeli advantage, who is likely to want peace the most?

[For instance yesterday I learned that the cradle of the rock, the "3rd holiest site" for Muslim has been left under Islamic rule by Israel, I thought "Israel had taken it from them." This was factored in to my overall view of the conflict.]

I wish I had a thorough debate with you. I could do it if you come to my site.

However, the above quote from your article says how ignorant and idiotic your article is. Third Holiest Muslim site is the "Most Holiest Jewish" temple do you know that. Do you have any knowledge of how a Muslim entity that was forming itself in Medina in 630s can have the "Third Holiest site" in far-off place like Jerusalem. Do you have any knowledge of how Muslims captured that spot of "Holiest of Holy" Jewish temple in 637/38 and replaced it with Muslim holy mosque of As-Aqsa. Do you have any knowledge of how Muslims captured the Holiest of Christian site, Jesus' birthplace? Do you have any knowledge of how Muslims' captured the destroyed the Arabian pagans' holiest of temple of Ka'ba in 630 under Muhammad's stewardship? Do you have any knowledge of how Muslims captured and destroyed thousnads of finest Hindu tempples and Buddhist monasteries in India and replaced many of the temples with mosques?

Muslims have captured the 'holiest sites' of all major religions (Buddhist, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and Christianity) of the time and often created mosque in their place as symbol of purifying those places of sinfulness of un-Islamism. They tried to go into the heart of Europe if not for Charles Martel stopped and defeated them at the battle of Tours in France. Then, we would have seen the Vatican standing their under the Catholic stewardship. We would have seen Muslims' "4th holiest site" their.

I regret that I am telling you repeatedly to learn first before you embark into an arena you have so little knowldge of.

How about the Jews, Christians and Hindus - who are powerful like the Muslims in those days - capture all the Muslim holy places and replace them with their own churches, temples etc. How will Muslims react if they become powerful 2 centuries later? Are they willing to see a Hindu/Pagan temple at the place of Ka'ba, which it originally was!? But today the Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Zoroastrains are all accepting the fact that their holiest sites being captured and replaced by the Muslims.

If you have a quick update of your knowledge on these historical events you should read this article on my site. Anamika also should also refer this article to see the color of invented Islamic tolerance of Jews over the history:

"Islamic Terrorism - Is it a New Threat?"
http://www.islam-watch.org/MA_Khan/IncessantTerrorism.htm

Also for Anamika, how was the secular Shahs Islamic. Should make any comparison with Prophet Muhammad to call them Muslim?

welcome back khan

:)

Liam,

Your're only 23! You're young enough to be my son. You deserve at least as much respect as I'd give them, if I wanted to teach them something.

What you write above, "However, my answer is it cannot be a Zionist state, as Zionism is a movement within Judaism, created to fight for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Israel and to defend it after the aim was achieved. In saying that, the reports I have read say that Judaism is currently overwhelmingly Zionist, and that secular or anti-Zionist movements are rare in modern Judaism," is what most Jews tell themselves.

It's a lie, but until 20 months ago, a lie that most Jews (including me) could swallow with little difficulty. Most websites of Jewish organizations in Israel will agree with what you have said; they are still lying to themselves, but with a lot more difficulty now.

So let's establish the first point.

Since the expulsion of Jews from their homes in Gush Qatif and northern Samaria by Israeli soldiers, police and border guards last summer, the perception of Jewish identity has begun to undergo a shift. This shift was hastened by the rocket attacks by HizbAllah on the north of this country.

Israelis, who once identitfied with the flag and the army (everybody views the government as a criminal mafia here) are having trouble doing so. The fact that they are Jews, as opposed to Israelis, is beginning to come forward in their minds, after being suppressed by over three generations of propaganda talking about the new "Israeli" identity. The painful truth is beginning to surface here, that this is not a Jewish state at all, but a Zionist one, and there is a real difference between the two.

What are the fundamental elements of the Zionist state?

1. Reclaiming (as in draining swamps, clearing off rock and planting forests) the land and settling it, all the way from Metúlla in the north to Netánya and Kesaría (Caesarea) in the west, to Eilát in the south and to Mitzpé YeriHó in the east, overlooking the Jordan. This dream was expressed best by Naomi Shemer (z"l) in her song "Yerushalayim shel Zahav" (Jerusalem of Gold);
"The shofar will be again heard blowing from the Temple Mount and we will travel to the Dead Sea via the Jericho Road."
This song was a hit in May 1967. This verse was added after the victory over three Arab nations in June 1967.
2. Resurrecting Hebrew as a spoken language among the Jewish people.
3. Ingathering the exiled Jews from outside the Land:
3a. Serving as a refuge for the Jewish people who are persecuted world-wide,
3b. Attracting Jews from prosperous countries like America, Britain and France.
4. Establishment of a state just like all the other nation states in the world!

Note what didn't make it into this list.

1. No Third Temple on the Temple Mount.
2. No Sanhedrin to fix up Jewish law.
3. No messianic redemption.
4. No establishment of the primacy of Jewish law in the Land of Israel.
5. No recognition that the Children of Israel will be a nation reckoned apart from the other nations of the world.

All the five elements above are primary elements of Judaism and of Jewish identity.

Zionism is not a religious movement at all. It is a secular nationalist movement among Jews who sought freedom from Christian and Moslem oppression. Its goal, the State of Israel is a standing accomplishment - but that goal is threatened by the fact that Jewish identity is split between two visions among our people; the fist one is the secular vision of being a nation like all the other nations, one that is recognized as an equal in the councils of mankind; and the other is the religious one of being reckoned apart from all the nations.

In India, this is a decided issue, or at least appears to be from what I read here, though there is yet much skirmishing about the details. But in Israel it is not, and the determination of so many states to see us delegitimized and ereased from under the sun indicates that the religious vision is the more valid one of the two.

Even if they do not wish to keep the Sabbath or keep kosher, many secular Jews are seeing the truth of this argument.

Why do I rag on about this so much? It seems entirely irrelevant to the article you have written. The reason is that before you can deal with the fellow over the fence, you need to comprehend the fellow in the mirror.

MA Khan:

The site was first built on by king David of Israel, who bought a threshing floor and built an altar on it. Intending it to be the site of the Temple. IT is called the Temple
Jesus of Nazerth worshiped there. And after his death and ressurection chritsianity was born in the Temple's shadow. His followers continued to teach and worship there until the legions of Rome crushed a Jewish rebellion and carted away most of the Jewish population they hadn't killed. A later Jewish rebellion, also crushed by the Romans 132-135 led to the roman decree that no Jew should set foot in the city nder pain of death.

Muslim Arabs took the city centuries later in 638, building the Dome of the Rock on Temple Mount. The spot on which they believe Muhammed ascended to heaven. Today it is considered the third holiest spot for Mulims, after Mecca, where he was born and Medina where he found refuge and died. The crusdaders slaughtered Muslim and jew alike and built a church on the site several centuries later. Which was recaptured by Muslims less than a century later. Jerusalem changed hands a further three times before Muslim's took and held it 1244-1917, when the Ottoman Empire lost its hold in world war one and the city came under British mandate. When the Jews once again took control of Jerusalema after the 1967 war they left the Temple Mound under Islamic rule.

Today, you can see Muslim's praying at the dome of the rock atop temple mount, Jews praying at the western wall barely a stones throw below and christians praying along the via-delarosa and at the holy sepulcher a few hundrend yards to the north and west. Surrounded by the rubble of centuries of conflict.

How's that.

Liam, great going, I do understand most of your points and you are making sense of the real geo-politics of Israeli-Palestinian problem, rightly so the occupation is the key word here, not what happen 54 or 67 or 73..! One is never too old or young to learn, take a quick look at these sites I'm sure they will give you more prospective to this quagmire, click on http://notinmyname.org/ or http://cactus48.com/

Ruvy, you have made few valid points but you need to see the bigger picture at times..! One more thing, antagonizing Liam for his view ain't gonna do you any go, considering that you are as old as his dad or so you said! Man has to say what he wants without worrying of been talk down to.

Moreover, if we gonna see peace between us, we do need more folks like Yasser Abed Rabo and Yosi Bilen and way less likes of Khaled Mishal and Avigdor Lieberman. Don't you agree with me, with out ponder so much on history and places of worships..! Called it Muetela or Mudilah, Judae and Samaria or Gaza and Dufah, you can not establish a nation state like anyother on a land you occupy by force..!

MK, you keep making blunder after and other, it's getting to point of "Total loss of logic and reason", you need to start learning how to disagree with someone without calling him names or sorting to verbal outrage and concocting stuff hollywood or bollywood could not use to make a flimsy movie...!

I spent couple of hours trying impartially to making some senses out of most of your posts and even your "infamous site" and the only logical conclusion I have come to is that you hardly understand Islam or Muslims and you so abhorrently hateful all that is linked to Arabs, Islam and Muslims. I could not figure out where this hate is coming from but usually I believe it's either bigotry or ignorance or both..! Either way, you get to do something about it otherwise it will eat way whatever left of your life if you have any left it..!Q

One last thing, you have made lots of ignorant misrepresentations in your response to Liam's post but one that particularly stands out is your total lack of knowledge about Islamic history, how is possible Prophet Abraham's "House of God" that God ordained him to build become a Pagan Temple..or the Ka'aba? and Do you know why is called Ka'aba today or what it was the original name? Where did exactly have you read that..? I suggest you do little bit of ""Accurate learning" and more reading by the "correct" sources this time around..!

Word of advice for you, free your mind and heart from hate, it is not going to do you any good..! Let the light of love in..!

The rest of the story..!

Is it Nameste or khuda "God" hafiz..!

P.S. I just learned something myself, the word "God" comes from Sasanian word "Khoda" meaning God!

Abdallah, I have not called anybody any names. It is you who have called names to sagacious secular-humanist scholars like Ibn Warraq. I have however pointed out some general characteristics of Muslims which does hold upto civilized behavior. Muslims's behavious over Prophet's cartoons, Pope's comments and raping of uncovered meats and all that are example of their utter failings.

[Abdallah: "how is possible Prophet Abraham's "House of God" that God ordained him to build become a Pagan Temple..or the Ka'aba?"]

Which history books tells us that Abraham ever came to Mecca. There is no mention of Abraham, the mythical Judaic character, ever came to Mecca - niether in Bible or Torah. It is idiotic on the part of God not telling Jesus about Mecca at all who came about 600 years before Muhammad. Muhammad's making up stories to make a claim on all the holy sites in the reason are hardly defendable facts.

About my misunderstanding Islam or hating Muslims, you have to point out where I have made an unjustified assessment. My sources are the Koran and Prophet's biographies by greatest scholars of Islam. If calling someone a murderer for mudering someone is hate - so be it. It stands good to Islamic judgement. But it is the responsibility of civilized person and society to comdemn a murderer. There is little wrong in condemning Hitlers for the barbarism he had perpetrated.

Abdallah,

I go on about figuring out Jewish identity because a confused man who does not even know who he is will not make intelligent decisions. I'm not deliberately excluding Arabs from my topics of discussion - I'm trying to get clear to Liam - and the rest of you (like Krishna at his article on a similar subject) that men of good will have to be honest with themselves and understand where they themselves stand, even if they do not wish to be honest with others.

The problem with this article is that it is headline driven. The issues here will not be dealt with by commenting on headlines. It is very important to understand what motivates men like Olmert, Lieberman, Yossi Beilin, etc., just as it is important to understand what motivates men like
Khaled Meshal.

Very simply and briefly.

1)Lieberman is a product of the Russian mafia here who has ambitions to sit in the "godfather's" chair. He has insisted on a reform in the Israel governing system thinking he can manage to do just that. Is he in for a surprise...

2)Olmert is a a thief afraid of being tossed into jail. Menny Mazuz, who was the protogé of Yossi Beilin, has several files on Olmert and is capable of having Olmert tossed into jail. So Mazuz tells Olmert what to do, and Mazuz' conditions are kicking out the "evil" settlers from their homes. That explains the "cease fire" and Olmert's latest proposals.

3)Beilin is a fellow who tried to advance in the Labor party and who failed, so he quit and joined the "further left" party on the Israeli spectrum, Meretz. But his basic idea is a Middle East without national boundaries at all. This is the ultimate "assimilationist," trying to drink tea and have cakes with Arabs and convince everybody that "we're all just good buddies." Sure...

In looking at Khaled Mashal or Hamas, I'm not on as firm ground. But generally speaking, both the PLO and Hamas are branch offices of the Egyptian Moslem Brotherhood, and they have their ideological roots with the Wahhabi in Arabia. Their solution is simple: a judenrein (Jew-free) Filastin from the river to the sea. The only issue of difference is how to achieve the aim. A fellow who headed Orient House (the PA's attempt at a foreign ministry in Jerusalem a while ago) whose name I have forgotten, explained a strategy of stages, getting Israel to pull out of here, then there, then the next place. This could be accomplished at the negotiqating table, or by violence, or by using both.

When you loook at the strategy of bombarding S'derot with Qassam rockets and then telling the Israelis that the bombardment will not stop until S'derot is evacuated, you see this strategy of staged withdrawals in action.

Olmert, always watchful of what Mazuz might do, allowed the military to masturbate about destroying Hamas, but then pulled back and followed the prescriptions of "no-borders" Beilin, and offered a "cease-fire" and a "Palestinian" state.

Beilin knows, as anyone with half a brain does, that a "Palestinian" state in Judea and Samaria would be a welfare case prepetually in need of foreign aid, if only because of the constant need to arm Arab troops to attempt to overthrow a continually weakened Israel. Money sent in "good will" by the EU and the US and others would not go to building peace, or building an economy or anything else but war with the Jews. The élites in th EU know this as do the élites in the US, like the Bush's and the Rockefellers and their many running dogs.

Now you have to ask the question: why would any Jew get behind or cooperate with such a program?

Ruvy, well spoken and points well taken,,!

On this, (Beilin is a fellow who tried to advance in the Labor party and who failed, so he quit and joined the "further left" party on the Israeli spectrum, Meretz. But his basic idea is a Middle East without national boundaries at all. This is the ultimate "assimilationist," trying to drink tea and have cakes with Arabs and convince everybody that "we're all just good buddies." Sure...)

I said to you why not..? what I can visit any country on earth at my wish and will and none will question but if ever visit the State of Israel, it's definitely sure thing, my name will be going to be in lots folks les "bad secret books" and same applies to you ever would want visit the Sultanate..!

On this (Now you have to ask the question: why would any Jew get behind or cooperate with such a program?)

On the above, my response is "for justice" for doing right to the people who are your neighbors as well as your enemies..? For stoping all these sensible bloodshed. and let me ask you have you ever wondered what their lifes is like? Don't you think they deserve a break..?

And for poor stellers who where dumped by Israeli politicians in a land that is "still fought-over" and lie to them about it.

I found your personal descriptions of each of these guys quite correct but I do happen to strongly disagree with you the fact that you tend to simplify where the lines crosses between Hamas and PLO. I think this one big mistake most of Israeli commentators make for more ulterior motives such as painting all your enemies with the same bruch, but the fact remains there is bid ideological and political differences between the two. Where Hamas is more leaning towards religion, PLO is more secular in there common political platform and making of their members, some of the most senior leaders are Christians and even have a Jewish member in the PLC..

I thought this would have been very clear to you been since you more exposed to the political wrangles of the Palestinians.

My friend if you are an Eastern Jew, without a doubt we are very much related through blood so it is time we make mends..!
If you were an European Jew then we are interconnected through bond of humanity so it's time we make mends..!

Don't take me for over realist or over passivist but keep blaming each other is not gonna solve much of our shared problems, it's time the public in both countries choose the right people to lead them to a lasting peace.

I said this without an intention to insult you, please let us just stop this rhetoric and hype of Israel been wiped out of the man or disseminated by Arab armies, you know and I know that is impossible and they would not and could not even if they tried.

I strongly believe that Israelis and Palestinians could solve their own problems an amicably in no time if there was is no outside interferences and presures on both sides.

Good going Ruvy,

Yallah,

Abdallah,

We have plenty to talk about, you and I. We're both in the neighborhood, and can discuss like gentlemen who understand the gravity of the issues. One point I will make with you right now. I don't "wonder" at what the life of my Arab neighbors is. I see a lot of it. And a lot of it, I don't like to see. Poverty is never pretty. So, in all truth, I do not want to see my neighbors to die, nor do I want to see them poor.

But right now, I have to get off... Can't use the computer on the Sabbath!!

Yallah, l'hitra'ót!
Shabbat Shalom

Last message was to Abdallah

To Ruvy, Shabbat Shalom Akhe..!
Be good and god bless.
Abdallah

Liam, Thanks mate, some told you I'm an expert, How on earth I would know! .... I all know is 3 people who have so much in common, believing in the same God and building stones houses or temples, mosques and churches or synagogues and fighting over...crazy punch if you ask me..! But then again who I'm to judge..!
My solution. Let it be a free capital of all 3 faiths...! What is so rotten about that ..!

Have a nice weekend end.

Abdallah

Now let us look at the religious side of this whole conflict. First, let's look briefly at the Jewish side.

We can take it for granted that the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, the Torah, grant the Children of Israel control over this country. In the final analysis, our claim to this land is not based on what some men in frock coats said in 1917, or in 1947. It is based on the Torah. That is the reason that the Russian delegates to the Zionist Congress of 1903 walked out on Herzl - he was willing to accept a "homeland" from the British in what is now east Africa. East Africa was not specified in the Torah, the Land of Israel was.

In essence, to make it short and simple for everyone all around, there are three interlocking covenants between G-d, Abraham and Moses that are the basis for the claim.

People Covenant - the Almighty is the G-d of Abraham, who promised him that he would be a great nation, and that the peoples of the world would bless themselves through him. The sign of the Covenant is the "Brit milah", the circumcision of the foreskin, to be performed on each Israelite male at eight days of age. Islam deems this ritual to be performed at age 13 on Moslems, as this was the age that Ismail (Ishm'ael) was circumcised. G-d also makes it clear that the child of his and Sarah's, YitzHak (Isaac) would inherit.

The Land Covenant - G-d promises Abraham that his descendants through YitzHak would inherit a land - the land where he himself lived. A the time this covenant is made, the land is called Canaan, but it is ultimately to be known as the Land of Israel. G-d doesn't disinherit Ishmael. But the Land of Israel is to be for the descendants of YitzHak (Isaac) and Ya'akov (Jacob).

G-d appears to Isaac and Jacob and repeats the essence of these covenats to each of them.

The Torah Covenant - this is the Torah that G-d reveals to Moses at Sinai, the laws that take up the last four books of the Torah, along with the commandments that our rabbis discern in the first book of the Torah. We, the Children of Israel, are expected to observe the commandments in the Torah. This is part of the "deal."

That's our end from the Jewish side. As I hinted at earlier, more than just Jews are involved. The remaining tribes that had "disappeared" from history seem to be popping up again, one by one, and they too, share in the Burden of following the commandments.

But what about the Qur'an? I am not a Moslem, and do not claim to have knowledge of the Qur'an. So for me to quote the Qur'an based on my depths of ignorance would be the height of arrogance and stupidity. But I do feel relatively safe in quoting the works of a Sufi scholar, Sheikh Professor Abdulhadi Palazzi, a man I'm privileged to have met. Here is where it gets interesting.

First let me recommend you to an interview with Sheikh Professor Palazzi in Front Page Magazine.com from September, 2005.

In the interview, you get his general viewpoints without specific citations from the Qur'an - for the most part. Basically, I view the Sheikh Professor as an authority.

Let's see what he has to say on Israel's "right to exist,"

"As a scholar of Islamic Law, I believe that Islam permits wars under certain conditions (i.e., it permits some soldiers to fight against other soldiers when ordered to do so by the State), but strictly forbids taking military initiatives by individuals, groups or factions (which is referred as "fitnah", i.e., sedition), strictly forbids targeting civilians and strictly forbids committing suicide. Consequently, as a Muslim scholar, I must necessarily condemn suicide bombing as a matter of principle, irrespective of who the victims are. I am obliged to say that a suicide bomber is by no means a martyr of Islam, but a criminal who dies while committing acts which Islam views as capital crimes.

Regarding Israel, I beg your pardon but may I ask you to please consider refraining from speaking of Israel's "right to exist." Affirming Israel's "right to exist" is as unacceptable as denying that right, because even posing the question of whether or not the Children of Israel (Jews) -- individually, collectively or nationally -- have a "right to exist" is unacceptable. Israel exists by Divine Right, confirmed in both the Bible and Qur'an.

I find in the Qur'an that God granted the Land of Israel to the Children of Israel and ordered them to settle therein (Qur'an, Sura 5:21) and that before the Last Day He will bring the Children of Israel to retake possession of their Land, gathering them from different countries and nations (Qu'ran, Sura 17:104). Consequently, as a Muslim who abides by the Qur'an, I believe that opposing the existence of the State of Israel means opposing a Divine decree."

At his website (follow the link at Sheikh Prof. Palazzi's name above), you get a taste of his views with citations to source works in the Qur'an and the Hadiths.

This is all from the mouth and pen of a man we Jews can all view as a friend. But what about our enemies? Like Al Qaeda? This was published in Debkafiles last year. Text follows below.

Al Qaeda's New Publication: "The Jews" Are Unworthy of the Promised Land
DEBKAfile's Exclusive Report
August 1, 2005, 10:10 PM (GMT+02:00)

Shown above is the cover of al Qaeda's new print-Internet magazine Zerwat al Sanam ("Tip of the Camel's Hump"). A lavishly produced, professionally-edited publication, it reads as though Iraq commander Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was dictating his operational creed -- yet another indication of his high rank in al Qaeda's hierarchy.

A five-page essay appearing under the transparent alias of Abu Zubeida al-Baghdadi is entitled: "How should Islam relate to the Jews?" This is the first time this question has been discussed in theological terms in any al Qaeda publication. The writer's choice of name -- a nom de guerre rather than a nom de plume -- and the cover, both bespeak violence rather than polemic.

From the first week of July, the terror group's releases have included "Israel", the "Jews" and "Zionists" in the same threatening context as "infidels", "Crusaders" and "sons of Satan", the epithets reserved for the Americans and their allies. This heightened focus on Israel and Jews dates from the internal directive Zarqawi passed to his adherents, which said: "Israel is on our list of targets...and very soon".


DEBKAfile's Islamist experts have translated passages from this article as it appeared in the new "Tip of the Camel's Hump". [DEBKA Editorial comment appears in brackets starting "DEBKA Editor:"]


Al Baghdadi divides Muslim lore on the Jewish People into two stages.


Stage One:


Allah decided to test the Jews when they were still an oppressed people. [DEBKA Editor: In Pharaohs' Egypt]. He [Allah] seeks to lead them [Children of Israel] to the path of faith and victory and therefore urges them [Children of Israel] to conquer the Land of Israel [acknowledging that Allah caused the Jews to return to and conquer the Land of Israel]. But the Jewish People's main weakness emerges at this early stage. Its [Jewish People's] shoulders are too feeble to carry the heavy burden; the Jews always aspire to victory, but they are not willing to devote the necessary effort, sacrifice or sweat to achieve this end.

The Jews have learned and must still learn, says al Baghdadi, that there is no victory without sacrifice. [Al Qaeda's followers, in contrast, are ready at all times to make personal sacrifices].

To this day, the Jews have not discovered that which heaven imparted to us [the Muslims], that Allah grants victory only to he who dares cross the threshold and face danger alone. But the Sons of Israel want God to go before them and win their victory for them.

The writer here differentiates between God's authentic representatives and Jews who, he says, make cynical use of the divinity.


Stage Two:


Throughout the generations it transpired that Jews, unlike Muslims, do not fear Allah and are incapable of understanding that the world's moving force is fear of Allah, not of people. For example, they [Children of Israel] are even more afraid to fight for the Promised Land than they [Children of Israel] are of God. [DEBKA Editor: This argument attempts to portray the Jews as cowards who are scared to fight for their paramount value, the Promised Land, and willing to give away parts in order to shirk war].

For this reason, says the al Qaeda essayist, the Jewish People does not find it hard to break the covenant between God and Abram, which awarded the Land of Israel to the Jewish People for all generations. [DEBKA Editor: The writer is referring to Brith Habetarim, Bereshit/Genesis 15:18: "In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy [Abram's] seed have I given this Land [Land of Israel], from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates"].

That is why Allah has despaired of the Jews, in the view of the al Qaeda essayist. After bequeathing them every possible means for securing victory and independence, God found his effort had been in vain. Therefore the time has come to get rid of the Jews, because that is Allah's wish, al Baghdadi concludes.

Why quote this? When you look at this essay alone, it appears to just be your standard garden variety "why the Jews are no good" piece that one would expect from Al Qaeda. But looked at in conjuction with the article and works of Sheikh Palazzi, one sees that the Sheikh has made serious religious arguments, and that Al Qaeda needs a forum to provide an answer. Even our enemies, Al Qaeda, recognize and cannot get around the fact their own Qur'an grants us the right to rule in this land. They thus need to find a way to do an "end-run" around the Qur'an, so as to justify their own activities. That is the purpose of this essay.

In summary, peace is possible btween the Children of Israel and the Children of Ismail, using the Torah and the Qur'an as a starting place.

In large respect, Al Qaeda is right in its assertions about Jews being more afraid to fight for their land than of G-d. For this reason, the secular scum ruining this land from Jerusalem will have to go. But that is a task on my end of the table.

Aaman,

My friend Aryeh Gallin from the Root & Branch Assn., just got off the phone, asking me to look at this article from Arutz Sheva.

So on the one hand, we have the possibility of real peace between the Children of Abraham that I've outlined above, and the likelihood of real war that the path Olmert is following will result in.

At this point, it's even money that war will happen in the Iran-Beirut-Palestine axis, especially if Mr Cheney has his way, as expressed by the sagacious Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker

Ruvy, I have copied the Allah's wish reference for my future articles. I have found this hadith (prophet Muhammad's saying) which is quite in agreement with your reference:

Hadith of Sahih Muslim, Book 041 (Kitab Al-Fitan wa Ashrat As-Sa'ah), Number 6985:

"Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews."
---
Giant Islamic thinkers like Imam Ghazzali, Ibn Khaldun et al. have all emphatically affirmed these principles in their writings. The command against the idolaters/Hindus are even worse. Unless we understand that these are authentic principles of Islam and their execution is the bounden duty of every individual Muslim, it is difficult to grasp the problem world has at hand in the Israel-Palestine crisis.

Of course, one may argue that majority of the Muslims (pseudo-Muslims) do not agree to these heinous principle of Islam. Yet, a small fraction does. One must realize that even if just >0.5% Muslims take up this cause of Allah, they can turn the world upside down. It is because of the extreme fanaticism and suicidal zeal these fundamental Islamic principles instill amongst them.

Aaman,

This quote is from Foreign Policy, the mouthpiece of the CFR. It is very likely that when you see someting in Foreign Policy, you are indeed looking at foreign policy in the United States... The CFR forms a big part of the invisible (shadow) government in the States.

In the current issue of Foreign Policy, Joshua Muravchik, a prominent neoconservative, argued that the Administration had little choice. "Make no mistake: President Bush will need to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office," he wrote. The President would be bitterly criticized for a preëmptive attack on Iran, Muravchik said, and so neoconservatives "need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes."

We'll know it's round the corner when they make 'Team America: World Police - the Sequel'

Incidentally, I love gaz, this exquisite sweet they make in Teheran.

Ruvy, I hope you had a pleasant and peaceful Shabbat.

Sincerely, I do respect, appreciate and highly value most of your comments and particularly this one {But what about the Qur'an? I am not a Moslem, and do not claim to have knowledge of the Qur'an. So for me to quote the Qur'an based on my depths of ignorance would be the height of arrogance and stupidity. But I do feel relatively safe in quoting the works of a Sufi scholar, Sheikh Professor Abdulhadi Palazzi, a man I'm privileged to have met. Here is where it gets interesting}

What you have said above above not only addes validity to your arguments but it earns you respect among your friends here and I wish someone who is particualrly ingnorant of the teachings of Islam would be as breave as you are. also it is what a wise person reflects and says when he or she is presented with a situation he or she is not fully conversant and well familiar with. Never-the-less, I do agree with most of your points concerning the Quran in terms of "Right to Exist" and Yes, Allah (SWT) has given the children of Bait Israel to lots of blessings, to name few most of the prophets are from that house and equally he has save them from likes of Pharaoh (May God curse him till dooms day)

Now, there are few points I disagree with you if I understood you correctly, first, I object to the validation of equating the divine teachings of Torah to most unjust and inhumane British or UN mandates that resulted the partition of historical palsatine or falastine, I believe it would be rather more just if the concerned people would decide among themselves how to go about it at least we would have less blood shed in the last 60 years and it is not fair and you are not doing any justice to the "Holly Books of Torah". Moreover, Torah was not designed as an exclusive land grab tool by few Zionist leaders. I believe you do know that and share the same opinion with me. Or I'm misreading you..?

If so do you mean to say that historical Palastine has to be jewish land since it was given to Bani Israel by God..? and all of it..?

Furthermore, it's quite clear from the Quran that Allah (SWT) has granted the children of Bani Israel and accorded them to a specific lands, now it's quite an other thing if these land or lands include or encompassed from Akkah up north to Beir Saba'a (Beir Sheaba) in the South or the borders of Gaza and from the sea to the sea of Galilee and the Jordan river. I believe this is what the Zionist leaders had in mine and it's what every extremist such as Avigdor Liebermann and any card carrying member or connected to the National Religious Party is pormoted vinomously and fighting with others blood. A matter of record, it's quite far from what the Torah reveals. Hence, the central the question is which lands or land and how does that effect or implicates the indigenous habitants of such lands or land, if one takes a look at the old biblical names of places like Mad'en Assaleh now in Saudi Arabia it could easily be justified as part of that lands or land of Bani Israel, again Sinai could be part "the promise land". Promised by god to whom..?

Contrary what someone on this forum wants us to believe with his misuses and arrogantly and ignornatly taken verses and hadiths out of it's the original context to satisfy his sick, intolerable, detestable mine and evil ends, I believe God would not accept the notion of total extermination of whole group of people without forewarning them and giving them all the chances and opportunities to repent for thier humanly earthly sins as it goes agaisnt the teaching "All humans are sinners and the best of sinners are those who repent"! Also include those who do good and follow his laws as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah or Pharaoh and his armies or the Anti-Christ and his followers.

Frankly, it is not my inabilities to comprehend but I'm having a great difficulties understanding such a logic, I.e. pre-ordinations of lands or land to specific race or people. I could and do understand if it was the Wailing Wall, Mount Sinai, Mecca , Madina, Church of Nativity or be it the red light district in Amsterdam, why because these are places, one could comprehend that...!

I read in one of Jefferson's books that the Anglo-Saxon immigrants started implement and heavily using the term "The Promise Land" against indigenous Red Indians..!

On the bases of the biblical enlightenments of those who need the hear the word of God in all four corners of the earth, but their aim was not to spread Christianity but to exploit the land"

Equally telling is what has been quite documented and I am not making this up someone I know does, but according to lots of historians then present day Palestine including all the land that belong or makes up the state of Israel was inhabited by the Canaanites. This is only a historical prospective and it is not my views. in all honest, I would not consider much of history when it comes to resolving the painful and never ending animosity between the Jews and Arabs be Muslims or Christians, particularly in the Holy Land.

I would like to comment and if you allow me and would point out that, the basic tenants of both Torah and Islam and the teachings of Prophet Moses (Peace and blessings of God be upon him) and those of Prophet Muhammad (Peace and blessings of God be upon him) is Justice for all, i.e. a comprehensive JUST system that is accorded to all livings and none living things alike.

So what we need in the holly land is justice for all on equal footing and level play filed, just for Palestinians as well as Israelis on equal accords and within the convents of God. Period.

No historical connatations and misgivings be Jewish, Christian or Islamic, colonial as those of British colonial and political agents, personal ambitions as those of then Amir Faisal (The leader of great Arab revolt against the Turks) with the help of then the empire Britannia and I guess you all read and remember where Laurence of Arabia comes to the picture.

Ruvy, please let me understand this clearly, should I take that the bond of entitlemt of who is a Jew is not blood but rather faith as such any other religion, hence and only if that is the case, then blue eyed, blond Russian Jewish immigrant does have the same rights and claims to the land of Bani Israel as anyone from the 12 tribes and particularly Eastren Jews, since he is neither a blood relative of the house of Bani Israel or he is from the 12 tribes. If that is the case then, how could he claim such rights and privileges that you depicted in your arguments when God clearly made it into his covenants with Prophet Moses(PBABH)that such has been degreed to the House of Bani Israel and their Tribes..?
What if a guy from Nigeria converts to Judaism..? Does he become automatically part of that promise..?


Logically, if it's not blood but faith that dictates who has right to the "Promise Land" knowing that this promise was made by God to the Bani Israel Tribes. the two things are wrong in this equation, first, Jewish is not of Blood but by believe so anyone who has one one of his parents not jewish is and can be a jew. as I understand and you need to correct me if I'm wrong is that most of the Rabbis will adherd to fact that both parents to be of the Jewsih Faith..? Again doea that contracdic the original covenants given to Prophet Moses (PBABUH)..? if it does not, please expaling..?

Here you need to do bit of explanation so we can learn one or two things from you.


It is like saying that as stated in the Quran Al Kareem "All Muslims are brothers" hence as a brother to a Saudi then I have equal rights and privileges to the land of Nejd and Hejaz or collectively Saudi Arabia.

It's only to logically conclude then what is Saudi Arabia today most definately includes in norms of of the devine "Promised Land"
So do I understand, is that the reason why Israel upto today has not known and clearly defined geographical borders..? or is it because most of the land is disputed..?

As for Al Qadia, I would not say it but sometimes I wonder even if they Muslims and I would not want say it because I'm not the one who has the right to decide who is and who is not Muslim but one thing I can share with you is that I strongly believe that they are at total loss of the teachings of the glorious Quran and noble Hatiths.Otherwise, were did they go wrong..? and why are they so bloody thristy for mass killings everywhere..?

The rest of the story,


P.S. Ruvy you may want to take a look at this site cactus48.com and lot other similar ones and explain to me how they come to the conclusion of the land of Canaanites as far as Judea and Samaria is concerned.

Let me correct myself, Neturei Karta in hebraw menaing roughly "the watchers or "Natur Karya" or in plural "Naturie Karya" in Arabic meaning protectors of the city/Village.

Just for those of you how don't know the semitic languages.

Peace to all.

"I would like to comment and if you allow me and would point out that, the basic tenants of both Torah and Islam and the teachings of Prophet Moses (Peace and blessings of God be upon him) and those of Prophet Muhammad (Peace and blessings of God be upon him) is Justice for all, i.e. a comprehensive JUST system that is accorded to all livings and none living things alike."

Abdallah,
So long people blind-foldedly believe in such assertion without investigation and proof, it is impossible to get into the bottom of the many problems that overwhelmes us today. It is good if your assertions were true but the need of hour is to put such hypothesis on strong foundations by detailed analysis of the scriptural and extrascriptural religious literatures - from both Jewish and Islamic sources and bring them to the people (Muslim extremist, terrorists) involved in the internacine conflicts around world. Only conclusive evidence would convince them - not abstruct and unsubstantiated assertions. They want to see it in the words of Allah, Muhammad and Muhammad's actions.

abdallah:

you must have noticed how the uncle-abduls love to speak from both sides of their mouth?

in #27 he quoted from none but the 'cat-lover' - the rent-a-hadith guys who dropped a hadith to the highest bidder

and in #32 he talks about 'investigation and proof' and 'not abstruct (sic) and unsubstantiated assertions.'

dervishes whirl but what do you call a dog chasing his tail -- tailing?

ruvy:

after #24 your take on #32?

Abdallah,

You have indeed piled on a pack of hard questions for this ignorant Jew to answer. I will try, but I cannot do so now. I need to catch a bus into town and I feel sick, so I'll be walking slowly to the village bus stop.

I'll have to sort the questions out, and then attempt an answer.

With the help of the Almighty, I'll return, hopefully no sicker than I am. It's windy and cold here.

Temporal, re: #34

I'd be hard pressed to comment. I do not know either the Qur'an or the Hadiths and could not judge. I'd be walking in a foreign forest. I have enough trouble with Torah, Tana"kh and Gemara. In the final analysis, wise men who are Jews and Moslems will have to nail down these issues, and afterwards, the Jews will need to consult among themselves and the Moslems will need to consult among themselves.

I can only guarantee that there will be plenty of banging on the table in all of the discussions...

Bringing reconciliation out of enmity will not be an easy task.

And now I must be off on my errands.

Abdullah and Ruvy - great debate there. But as the heathen/pagan/nonbeliever/kaffir etc in the picture, I don't understand one point - both of you are discussing HOW much land was given to the people by God according to the Old Testament. Or who it was given to - Biblical ancestors of Jews or Muslims etc.

Surely this is about faith and not reality? Weitzman turned down the idea of a "Jewish" state in Africa because he wanted the land promised by God.

Same goes for the Muslims - Dome of the Rock is sacred because the Prophet ascended to heaven from there and so they won't relinquish their claim to it.

And look at the result - thousands dead, mutilated, displaced, tortured, imprisoned - massive suffering on BOTH sides, just because God PROMISED?

Surely this is stuff of myths, legends, fairy tales? Am I the only one on this forum who sees the absolute madness in using FAITH as the foundation for politics or indeed nation-building?

On the other hand, reading the debate on this thread reminded me of Anton Block's extension of the Freudian idea of "narcissism of minor differences" where he posits that conflicts between cultures who are similar are more vicious, prolonged and bitter than amongst cultures that are different.

With the discussion above, I see more similarities than I ever had between the Torah and the Koran, the Jews and the Muslims. I guess that is why this struggle unto death. So terribly sad.....

(Full disclaimer: I must confess my rational mind tends to back the claim of mostly disempowered, disenfranchised people who inhabited the land for centuries (Palestinians) rather than the Europeans (Ashkenazis) who seized the land and have since tried to re-make a mid-Eastern state in the image of a European/Western nation all the while stressing the white "European" side of the Jewish identity, privileging the Judeo-Christian side of their own history and relegating the Judeo-Islamic heritage and the non-Ashkenazi Jews even within Israel to the margins.

But then I am an observer on this conflict and hold no stakes - personal, religious or otherwise, so please don't jump down my throat!)

Am I the only one on this forum who sees the absolute madness in using FAITH as the foundation for politics or indeed nation-building?

No Anamika. You have company :)

Anamika writes:
...conflicts between cultures who are similar are more vicious, prolonged and bitter than amongst cultures that are different.

I think those cultures which are similar tend to put more efforts to differentiate themselves from close relatives, and in the process seem to hang onto certain notions more obstinately.

For example, look at the Abrahamic religions- Judaism, Christianity, Islam..

For an easterner all these religion seem so similar. However, each of these people will fight to death to prove that they are completely different from the other, and in an effort to prove they are different, they put too much emphasis on certain 'minor' differences to make themselves believe and also convince others that these 'minor' differences are not minor but in fact very fundamental.

For example, Islam considers all the prophets who have preceded Muhammed as their prophets as well. For them Moses, Jesus are all prophets of Islam, Mohammed being the last. They disagree with Christianity on certain 'minor' issues- they do not agree with Christians elevating Jesus to the realm of gods. They consider him human, just like Mohammed. Christians deify Jesus, and that doesn't go well with Muslims. Portraying Christ as sun of god is unacceptable to Muslims.

Another example- Shias and Sunnis differ in interpretation of a similar concept. Can a human (after Mohammed) be elevated to be the messiah or a spiritual leader? While Shias seem to be OK with an Ayatollah, who is an 'equivalent' of a Pope, Sunnis see it as heresy. They cannot accept another human (after Muhammed) to be representing Islam or acting as their 'spiritual leader'. However, they do accept certain leaders within Sunni populations, but they differ on 'mere technicalities' of interpretation.

For many easterners, these are mere technicalities, mere interpretations- one way or the other, it doesn't make difference. For most of these Abrahamic religions, they mean vast oceans of difference. They are irreconcilable differences that they are to die for.

For most rationalists or atheists, religion sounds alien, but it still is the most prevailing idea of mankind that has survived eons. It is the reality. One cannot wish away or shoo away religion. One doesn't have to. Religion and faith has its own reason, rhyme, mandate and requirements which it satisfies. The way science has a role but can be misused, faith has a role and is also misused.

I strongly believe and advocate that Israel has to grant Palestine its statehood, respect its sanctity and allow them to live as a nation (instead of making them live in occupation, roll in tanks, dismantle their elected governments)

On why I think Israel has to make the first move?

Israel is in the position of strength. They are the ones who oppress Palestine using armed divisions, rolling in tanks, putting up barricades, imprisoning people, etc, while Palestine resorts to desperate means such as a terrorism, guerilla warfare, etc. I believe that the first move towards reconciliation should come from the one who is in the position of strength.

To expect a desperate and oppressed Palestine to make the first move is foolhardy and bound to fail from the time of such a suggestion itself. They have nothing to concede. They have already conceded their freedoms, they are only rebelling by resorting to desperate tactics. For most Palestine those acts of terrorism are acts of heroism, because that's the only force they can put up against Israel. Expecting Palestine to tone down is asking a desperate man to concede further.

The first move from Israel, such as sanction of Palestine as a nation, respecting its boundaries and its sovereignty will solve many other problems- such as official recognition of Israel by Muslim nations, terrorism, etc.

But again, Israel, like Indian Hindus seem to be more interested in demonizing Islam to portray themselves as victims to get sops and help from Western Christianity. They have their egos to the brim and are not ready 'think out of the box' as Ruvy suggests. They are ready to roll in tanks, not extend hand of peace.

'sun of god' should read as 'son of god'.

MA Khan:
Do you say that Arabs were not forced into vacating their lands to accommodate Jews from different parts of the world during the creation of Israel?

ruvy 36:

perhaps i was unclear and cryptic (after #24 your take on #32?)

i wantred your (jewish - torah ) response to this:

So long people blind-foldedly believe in such assertion without investigation and proof, it is impossible to get into the bottom of the many problems that overwhelmes us today.

anamika:

loved your full disclaimer!

to alter mark twain some "familiarity breeds contempt, children and war"

;)

not to mention religion, temporal. :-)

Ruvy, you are not ignorant far from it,It was not my intention to give you hard time, just want to understand few things for my own learning..!

Please take your time and do what you can..! you know it's always appreciate it, even when I don't buy it,...:-)

Sholom Aleichem

Temparol, Gosh I had scratch my head couple of times on this and istil can't figure it out..!

(you must have noticed how the uncle-abduls love to speak from both sides of their mouth?)

I thought you are refereing to one my "real uncles" or are you..?

Now going over boeard..feel bit smart..not....!!
Is that offer to write for you still on the table..??

Take it easy and be happy..:-)

It's dark outside, and I just got back. I kicked my kid off the computer (we have two computers but we don't have a router, so only one of them can be hooked up to the phone line - he'll just have to play his e-mule games later).

I still feeel lousy, but reading the comments here have been something of an inspiration. So I'll give this a try.

Anamika, your disclaimer is the perfect segue into the hardest question that Abdallah has posed...

So let's repeat the meat of it here, and I promise, I won't jump down your throat.

"I must confess my rational mind tends to back the claim of mostly disempowered, disenfranchised people who inhabited the land for centuries (Palestinians) rather than the Europeans (Ashkenazis) who seized the land and have since tried to re-make a mid-Eastern state in the image of a European/Western nation all the while stressing the white 'European' side of the Jewish identity, privileging the Judeo-Christian side of their own history and relegating the Judeo-Islamic heritage and the non-Ashkenazi Jews even within Israel to the margins."

First let's get to a question lurking behind Abdallah's observations and put it right up front.

THE KUZARI AND ASHKENAZI JEWS

For anybody who does not know, the Kuzari were a Turkic people who lived north and east of the Caucasus Mountains who converted to Judaism about a thousand years ago. Legend has it that the king of the Kuzari listened to a Jew, a Moslem and a Christian argue it out, and chose to be a Jew, ordering his subjects to do likewise.

The big assertion on the part of many Arabs (and many others) is that Ashkenazi Jews, with their blonde hair and blue eyes (like I had when I was a child) are not really from the tribes of Judah, Shimon and Levi, and that they are converts to the faith from the Kuzari, and therefore have a "lesser" claim to the land.

There are two problems with this idea that pull the rug out from under it. One, is that there are certain names the Kuzari carried, and the overwhelming majority of us have no tie to these names. There are a few Jews who became famous who are probably descended from the Kuzari - one that I know of was named Isaac Asimov and if you don't know who Asimov was, I will jump down your throats - there'll be a quiz later.

The second problem is language. Ashkenazi Jews spoke Yiddish in Europe, a language that is essentially 13th century German with Hebrew used for intellectual and religious concepts. Perhaps, a good handle on this for you folks would be to look at Urdu as opposed to Hindi. Unless I'm wrong, Urdu is basically Hindi with a heavy mixture of Arabic terms for religious and philosophical concepts. Where I am wrong about south Asian linguistics, feel free to correct me.

The point of this is that if Ashkenazi Jews were of Turkic origin, there would be a significant portion of words of Turkic origin in Yiddish. I'm a Yiddish speaker, as well as someone who struggles with Hebrew. I can tell you that there are three words in Yiddish that are of Turkish origin. "Halvásh", referring to a dying man, "Halváh, a food Turks eat during mourning (and that I eat any time I can afford a kilo or two), and Hakham Bashi, which is the title of the Turkish chief rabbi.

So, put simply, the Kuzari did integrate themselves into the Jewish population in Russia, but all the other Jews who lived in Eastern Europe came from Germany or France. This means that my DNA is rather close to Abdallah's. My daddy lived in Russia-Poland (we're going back almost 90 years here) and was no where near the Caucasus. I may look like a Ruski, but I am a descendent of either, Yehuda, Shim'on, or Benyamin. So, Abdallah we're cousins, about 120 generations removed...

Hi cousin.

Before I forget, the quiz.

Name the Three Laws of Robotics as formulated by Isaac Asimov. Please put in a separate comment...

Anamika, your perception of the State of Israel and its ruling élites in relation to S'faradi and MizraHi Jews is painfully accurate.

Jews from Iraq, Kurdistan and Yemen tend to pronounce two letters of the Hebrew alef-bet, "Het" and "'Ayin" more the way Arabs do, which means that you can hear in their speech the difference between the "Khaf" and the "Het." The "'Ayin" which comes from deep in the throat, (as does the "Het") is distinctly different from the "Alef." Those of you who can read Arabic should understand what I talking about rather well.

The point is that the Ashkenazi newsreaders of Hebrew on Kol Yisrael or Galei Tza"hal deliberately drown out these differences in the letters, marking those who do pronounce them as "lower class." I made a point of teaching my own kids to pronounce the letters properly, as do the Yemeni, Kurdish and Iraqi Jews. Because I did, my younger son was able to learn to recite the Book of Mishlei (Proverbs) in the ancient Hebrew pronunciation with little difficulty. Ancient Hebrew, like Arabic, has a voiced and unvoiced "th" sound, and a "w" sound.

The way that European Jews have shoved the culture of the S'faradim and MizraHim to the periferies of "Israeli" culture is a pet peeve of mine that pisses me off royally.

The attitude of this paternalistic arrogant pack of thieves and late arrivals with respect to Bedouin Arabs is just disgusting. Everyone knows that the Bedouin who live in or near Be'ersheva are excellent trackers. So instead of rewarding these Bedouin and making them firm allies of Jews, the régime blocks themn from getting water and electricity to their villages and then expects them to sign up for the IDF.

I've been dancing around the essential question that Abdallah poses to our readers.

WHO IS A JEW?

The simnple answer is: a Jew is the child of a Jewish mother. One can convert, but in a Moslem country, that can be hazardous - given that a fellow can be put on trial for his life for leaving Islam in some countries. In European countries, where Jews were treated like trash, it just was not a paying proposition. Why leave the privileged position of Christianity to live in a crowded stinking ghetto? Is it different now in Europe. Truth be told, I could not tell you.

Jews tend to discourage converts. But some folks do insist on doing so, and I know at least six converts from Christianity, four of whom live in our village of Ma'aleh Levona.

So, to try to sum up a bit here, basically, Jewish identity is based on blood (though these days, the DNA does the real talking). The vast majority of Jews are descended from the couple of million Jews who lived in Judea 2,000 years ago, along with the Jews who lived in Egypt and Babylonia.

I've only dealt with one of Abdallah's questions. I don't know how much of these answers you want to buy, but when you'vew decided, just pay up at the counter. Dinars, pounds, euros, rupees, dollars, ands even shekels will all be accepted, but Swiss francs are preferred...