Israel and the Jews - Causes of Hatred, Or The Absence of Cause?

Dr. Dhasgupta,

I found your piece fascinating and intriguing. Laying my own political views to the side for the moment, I have to agree that the Moslems' complaints about my people do seem to constitute a whine, albeit one punctuated with bullets, rockets, and occasionally missiles...

I also find it interesting that nobody has even bothered to comment on this article until now. Just for curiosity sake, could you provide a link to the article on the Quran promising this land to my people?

I enjoyed this very much. Would you object if I recommended this article to the Root & Branch Information Service for distribution on its list? It's a small list, but with many influential people on it... You make many cogent points that ought to be heard.

#1 Ruvy, sure, please go ahead. Its an open licence article.

Ah... finally somebody comes up with a level headed post over Israel vs. Muslim World. I guess it is safe to say that this article is free of ideological bias.

We're force fed on a daily diet of Israel-hating articles in many newspapers. Israel is massacring civilians without a care for human rights, we are told. The Devil itself. Somehow, the human rights violations of the groups with which Israel is perennialy at war are glossed over, as is the paranoid hatred and suspicion with which Jews are viewed by Muslims world over. The hate and prejudice component in Muslims' criticism towards Israel (and Jews) is completely ignored.

forgot to mention about your other question. It is a bit more complicated than just the sura, so if I can ask you to be patient till next issue, you will see what I found out and the logic I used. I had to do quite a lot of arguments about it and just the small snippet wont do it justice.

thanks

Let's also remember that the Arabs were given over 70% of Mandatory Palestine, and they started the first war, which they lost (sounds like Pakistan?) and then were pushed out by the Israelis as part of the victor's spoils of war - something that India didn't do. But, the point being, that the infamous Plan D (Techmed Dalet?) was in response to an Arab offensive, and that was partly the genesis of what followed - the violence, the intifada, the Camp David accords, their breaking, the second intifada, the new ghetto-ization, etc.

Great article. bd, please write up the Quranic analysis if you can.

beady:

why is the US (policy) almost universally despised?

hint:

the same reason is behind israel's universal popularity

;)

t

I take your point, but generally, there is a straight link between what the USA does and a particular people getting upset about it. So whether its bases and rapes in South Korea, Germany and Japan, or bad foreign policy in UK, or USS Eisenhower in India, etc. etc. there is a link. What I tried to show was, what's the link? and why is there such a pavolivan link? and why disproportionate? Simply no explanation, mate. And because of this, their complaints about Israel and the Jews are not considered to be justified, now they have become figures of fun and amusement at worst and "cry wolf" at best.

not good.

"Let's also remember that the Arabs were given over 70% of Mandatory Palestine, and they started the first war..."

Aaman - a few notes on that: Specific Arab states started a the war not "Arabs" - in part prompted by the mass exodus from Palestine into their own lands of refugees. If you must compare the situation to the subcontinent - which is cannot be - a closer example would be Bangladesh war which was also preceded by a flood of refugees. (YES I KNOW there were other factors, including religious ones just as in case of Israel-Palestine, but this is to rectify your own parallel).

There is ample documented evidence from Weitzman, Ben Gurion and other first generation Israeli leaders that demonstrate that Israel was prepared to push out Palestinians as a matter of state policy even from before its formation. The biggest problem here is that most people rely on Ben Gurion's public speeches (esp. the "living in peace" speech of 1948) but little is mentioned of massive private (state and personal) correspondence amongst the Israeli leaders that are quite thoroughly documented and published. These are generally limited to students of the ME or history instead of general debates which are based on much propaganda, disinformation and popularly created myth (Another one of these is that 1967 was a "defensive war" against the "Arabs" - something that has been refuted by loads of writers, including from Israel).

BD - I think you miss a major element in your article - ALL Muslim countries are postcolonial and a sense of injury is quite palpable. Unlike India, they have not managed to keep internal liberty as oil and geostrategy has made sure their leaders are foisted upon them - and thus follow overall policies that are not considered of local benefit.

Internally most populations are disgruntled, frustrated and angry - remember the Algerian "civil" war that killed thousands was a result of an election that was won by the "wrong" party? The army was heavily supported by Western countries to stop what was the democratic will of the people.

There is ample proof that most groups with fringe or extremist ideologies when brought into political mainstream through democratic processes automatically moderate their stances. But most Islamic countries have not had this choice. Think the IRA Provos for example which went from a "terrorist" organisation to part of the electoral mainstream within ten years. There is persuasive evidence for this(Jonathan Moore, an IRA expert has a brilliant analysis comparing Irish and ME armed groups).

Unlike Atlantean, I do see an attempt at understanding although a definite ideological agenda is this article, which most of us automatically have. What is troubling is the idea that opposing an oppressive colonial state is dismissed as "whining." I suppose when Hizbollah or Hamas fight, it will then be considered "terrorism" rooted in "whining." Or when Iran takes a hardline stand, it is declared pariah and threatened with invasion, its protests are also "whining."

By choosing to focus only on Islamic aspects, you fall into a spurious discursive clash that has been constructed in the past few decades, primarily by US and US-Jewry, generally to the detriment of Israel itself.

Temp - there is loads of evidence that Scrowcroft and Wolfowitze were consultants to the Israeli government during the Clinton years and presented a programme for "regime change" and "re-shaping" Middle East that was suspiciously similar to the one carried out by the Bush Jr. administration.

Just a funny insight into how the two governments are linked....

:-)

I think I would tend to agree more with Anamika than BD. Most regimes in the muslim world are repressive and coincidentally the most repressive regimes in the middle east are supported strongly by the United states.

Your debate about Jews and Muslims is a little incomplete. Jews afterall are not just a religion but now a nationality. Whether they can be compared with Muslims or not is a fair debate. However there is no denying that there are far more successful jews than muslims, 2% of Americans are jews but 13% of American senators are Jewish. Look at all the brilliant entertainers out there- Spielberg, Seinfeld, Jon Stewart, Sacha Baron Cohen or even successful entrepreneurs- Brin and Page of google and of course Rahm Immanuel and Schumer who won the congress for the democrats.

The reality of the whole problem is the palestinian cause has not been supported well by any muslim government at all and that is the source of many problems in the Middle East

1. Egypt sold out in 1979
2. Jordan sold out in 1970
3. Saudis were never deeply involved
4. The Pakis were busy with us
5. The Iranians until 1979 were an American protectorate

Interestingly BD's belief that only muslims have an opinion about Israel is incorrect. The fact of the matter is most of the world have an opinion in line with muslim opinion about Israel. The difference is that the rest of the world donot go around bombing and shooting innocent people like the muslim jihadi nuts.

Opinion being against jews or against the state of Israel is not something that is modern. Even if the state of Israel as a homeland of jews is new, the history of persecution against jews is not new news.
It is of course seen that the problems of Muslims being against Israel or Jews is something that is modern. This is incorrect; anti-semitism is a curse that has been with humanity since time immemorial. An example is the depiction of a jewish money-lender in The Merchant of Venice where a jewish money-lender has a very negative portrayal. And persecutions in nature of pogroms that occured in slavic countries were common place.
In modern history, the concept of a homeland to jews was a UN mandate; but as soon as it was established, the numerically stronger arab states attacked it but were beaten back. After this, the state has developed its agriculture, weaponry and economy to the extent that it has never felt in danger from its neighbours except for a brief period in the 1973 war. Some of the hate against Israel stems from a helpness to be able to do anything that can threaten the state of Isreal.
From what I have read, a large part of the exodus in the 1948 war was vountary (even though it is difficult to believe that people can leave their homes volunatarily). All the arab states that proclaimed the palestinians as brothers have always treated these refugees as reefugees, never assimilating them in their nations, keeping the anger always hot.

"From what I have read, a large part of the exodus in the 1948 war was vountary (even though it is difficult to believe that people can leave their homes volunatarily)."

Yes, because little is said about the "Israeli" massacres, rapes, looting and pillaging of Palestinian villages in the lead up to the formation of Israel. Deir Yassin was not a once off! The population was terrified and forced to leave. Much of this is amply reported by newspapers and journalists (including Times, NYTimes and Reuters) covering the region at the time and can be found in libraries ranging from the British Library. It isn't mentioned in the primarily "Jewish" scholarship that is published in the US because it makes Israel look bad. But simply because it is not repeated ad nauseum by academics does not mean the original reports are not there.

"Anti-Semitism" is a Western and Christian phenomenon and not necessarily a universal one so can we stop tarring everyone with the same brush. Jews lived for 2000 years in India with no problems. They flourished in much of the Middle East (see JEWISH scholars including Shohat, Tzabar etc) until Zionism and the state of Israel changed that.

Btw, you may want to read Silberman's book on Jewish involvement with colonial trade in Asia during the 18th and 19th century. Despite their collaboration with oppression and exploitation of populations ranging from Iran to China, most people in this part of the world did not turn "anti-Semitic."

Finally - you're right about Palestinians not getting the support they need. They call themselves "Usman's shirt" - which is to be waved in order to encourage anger but then discarded.

On the other hand by saying "Arabs" don't support them, you are essentializing an entire region and erasing particular geographical, ethnic and cultural identities. After all, all of Europe is also "white" and Christian, but no one would expect Germany to "absorb" Spanish or Italian or Czech or Polish refugees without complaints.

Anamika

Whining is exactly the word I would use. Post colonial regimes is a very big fig leaf to hide behind, and there are tons of post colonial regimes which are doing very well, thank you very much. So blaming the imperial powers, much that they have to blame for, is a very thin excuse. But that is exactly how this constant whine comes across, every muslim list you find, every muslim gathering you go to, the chances are much better than even that this issue will crop up. My point is that this is disproportionate, and there is no rationale behind it. By focusing on only the islamic aspects, I am making sure that the argument is firmly founded on one aspect, that is this eternal whine. There is actually not much reason for this whine.

I am afraid this habit of linking Israel and USA forms part of the above whine as well. Enough said on that. I see nothing wrong with it. If you see something wrong with that, then you are condemning 90% of interstate relations. And that's plain and simple naïve or dangerously one sided.

Chandra

Au contraire, the Palestinian cause has been supported too much by the Arab governments, and that is a major issue. As a matter of fact, nobody in the Arab world really likes the Palestinians, they think of the Palestinians as a whiney, selfish bunch, and I am talking people to people contacts. This selling out, as you mention, is and was a step long overdue. There have been countless Arab dead on the altar of Palestinian nationalism for very little help. Every where the Palestinians have moved to, they have created problems. In Lebanon, they were a direct cause of the civil war, in Syria, they have given the excuse for the thuggish baath party, in Jordan, they have swamped the local Bedouin and have been the cause for much misery, in Kuwait, they were chucked out in the Iraq war, they are hated in Iraq for being pampered by saddam over his own people, etc. etc.

Also, please read again, I said that others also have the same whine, what is disproportionate is the muslims reaction.

Ashish
The 1948 exodus can be laid half and half on both sides. The Jews helped and in many cases, didn't stop, and in very many cases, didn't allow the Palestinians to return. The Palestinians, on the other hand, along with their Arab colleagues, turned out to be a particularly cowardly and venal lot, and didn't help either. Irrespective of the truths, they are a wretched lot.

Anamika,

Jews flourishing in the middle east ?

http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-the-jews-in-muslim-lands

"with their Arab colleagues, turned out to be a particularly cowardly and venal lot, and didn't help either. Irrespective of the truths, they are a wretched lot."

BD - watch out! your own fig leaf of apparently unbiased opinion seems to have slipped to reveal a blatantly racist, eseentialised biased self. "Venal and cowardly" - would that include intellectuals and writers like Edward Said, Mourid Barghouti, Ibrahim Nasrallah? Or leaders like George Habash? or Leyla Khaled? Or indeed Khaled Meshal? Sheikh Yassin? Somehow "venal" or "cowardly" isn't the words that would apply to any of them.

In contradiction to your assertion, few postcolonial nations have managed to do well - India happens to be one of these and primarily because of its size which gave/gives it the ability to withstand foreign pressures and interventions. China is another. All other nations have suffered to lesser or greater degree from insistent Western intervention. A quick look at any major IR or Security journal will show you that. Even Western conservative magazines such as the Economist or Jane's Defense do not dismissed this aspect with your unheeding arrogance. And frankly they have far more credibility in their analyses!

Anamika

Work with me here and stick to the time frame. We are discussing 1948, relating to the previous comment. Can you tell me the great saladin's and wonderful arab leaders who led the great arab armies of 1948? Venality and coward behaviour was embarrassingly in display to all and sundry, not just me.

And here we go again, blaming everything and everybody with the post colonial boo hoo hoo we wuz robbed thing. Ok, lets see, South Korea? China? Taiwan? Indonesia? Singapore? Malaysia? Vietnam? India (oh! you noted that already, sorry!), Dubai? UAE? Jordan? Kenya? Uganda?

As I said, people need to stop whining and do something. This incessant whining and blame allocation only works for some time, then it starts wearing exceedingly thin.

Also, Anamika, you might be interested to know that the Arabs are a linguistic cultural group, not a race. So before you start labelling either the Arabs as a race or me as a racist, you might want to reconsider the background. You can, on the other hand, if you so wish, call me a linguistic chauvinistic culturalist but I suspect that will lose quite a lot of the fun of throwing labels around :).

Oh! they arent ethnic either, so I am afraid that's out as well :)

beady:

What I tried to show was, what's the link?

the link is in front of our eyes justice

when you want to draw parallels from history you fall in to a simple quest - whose god if any are we to believe in?

the god/s of jews, muslims? And then we fall into classic he said/she said

so

while keeping an scholarly eye for that on the back burner one must focus on ground realities and their reaction in the region and in the world

no matter what theory/theories you bring up from your crystal gazing the real reason for this state remains apartheid, ghettoisation, bantustisation, occupation of a people caused by a state -

ps:

... the Arabs are a linguistic cultural group, not a race...

most arabs in that region are semites bud:)

pps:

and one more thing since you were focused on 1948

can you show me Deir Yassin on the map today?

and

speaking of maps, can you show me one official map of Israel?

;)

Kenya and Uganda as postcolonial success stories?

Yes lets go down a list of postcolonial disasters to make my original point that Western intervention has ensured political and economic disasters in the various former colonies starting with Argentina, Venezuela, Columbia, (and most Lat Am countries in differing measures); Africa gives us sterling examples of Mozambique, Nigeria, Ghana, Angola, Benin, Rwanda, Burundi and the DRC.
Asia: Thailand, Cambodia, Sri Lanka are just some examples.
I suggest you take a look at the annual conflicts map produced by Jane's, compare to the UNDP map again produced annually for economic and social indicators, and then make a list of "interventions" either overt or covert by Western nations.
For the rest, refer to temp's posts which make quite pertinent points albeit far more succintly!

Anamika

yep, kenya and uganda are definitely success stories. On what basis would you not say so? And let me throw some additional aspects which you seem to have missed, the vast swathe of eastern european countries which seem to have done better post colonially from the east. That, of course, wont matter.

So, i am not sure where that leaves your thesis that colonialism is the root cause of all the problems. So, that takes care of that issue.

beady

read 21 again

you missed the sarcasm;)

t

you are now looking at something quite differently. This angst which we see for the palestinians is disproportionate, and there is simply no reason for that. None whatsoever and you nor I can explain this. You will agree that while more people have been killed in sudan, why is there less of a mess about it? Explain that to me, if you may. If Justice is indeed the case, my friend, then more deaths should mean more justice. BD showed millions dead and how much was the angst? So while there is atrocities galore on the palestinians, there have been bigger ones, and this disproportionate whine is rather strange. Justice is proportional, my friend, the lack of proportionality is why this issue interesting.

Second, yes, they are mostly semites, but the group definition is on culture and language. If you do want to go down the semite definition, then where does that leave the jews? more importantly, where does that leave anamika's accusation of racist? Bit lost there, lol.

Finally, der yassin isnt there, its buried under concrete and there is no official map of israel. What's the point? I am sure you know of other countries and states whose borders are disputed. Do you again wish me to list or explain how this debate and angst over disputed borders in palestine is way over the board compared to others? And there is no end to dragging out old faults, people move on. If they dont, then they have the same issue like the rallying cry over somnath, baghdad, etc. etc. my friend. I hate those whiners with a vengeance as well! :)

Now I am off on my travels, if anybody wants to discuss further, will be available intermittently on my email address which you can get from my blog addy

Have a great week!

cheers

bd

beady

have a safe sojourn

just a quick response for you to ponder in vacant and pensive mood

Justice is proportional, my friend, the lack of proportionality is why this issue interesting.

please focus on justice

and

how this denial has resulted in unleashing terrorism world wide

this is the core - the catalyst

think, my friend:)

and you lost my point on deir yassin (hopefully not intentionally)

:)

Sigh...sometimes I wonder! Palestinians matter more than those killed in Somalia, Rwanda and so forth because they have become the last symbol of Western imperialism through occupation of land (note - this does not include neo-imperialist economic policies or indeed indirect intervention, or for that matter war/invasion without intent of occupation). If you can't see that then there is no point...

BD, bon voyage to whichever shores you are headed...

Temp - Passia has maps that show Deir Yassin. :-)

Whatever said and done...The Israelis occupy Palestine and thats an illegal occupation. Whine/ Non whine.....violence or no violence.....The sooner they leave the occupied territories the better it is for all...Including Israel.
As far as the Jihadi nuts are concerned- The sooner we got rid of them the better it is.

chandra:

As far as the Jihadi nuts are concerned- The sooner we got rid of them the better it is.

not only these terrorists... but the worldwide increase in terrorism in the last four decades can also be attributed to growing from this injustice unleashed and perpetrated by the israelis and their lone ranger friends from the potomoac

Temporal,

You say:

but the worldwide increase in terrorism in the last four decades can also be attributed to growing from this injustice unleashed and perpetrated by the israelis and their lone ranger friends from the potomoac"

Interesting. The "worldwide increase in terrorism." Does that also include Thai Buddhists killed in Thailand by jihadis? I'm just wondering what Thai Buddhists have to do with Israel-Palestine and the West or what atrocities they have committed on Muslims. Or how about the attack on Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore by the Lashkar-e-Toiba or the recent massacre of 65 Hindi speakers in Assam by ULFA? All linked to Israel and the West? LTTE is also fighting for the Palestinian cause isnt it?

Yes bhaskar saheb,other conflicts have caused more loss of life.
But as anamika explained "Palestinians matter more than those killed in Somalia, Rwanda and so forth because they have become the last symbol of Western imperialism through occupation of land If you can't see that then there is no point..."
Ever wondered why most third world countries mostly vote in favour of the palestinian side in the UN General Assembly ? Because israel is seen as a symbol of Western imperialism just like aparthied era south Africa was percieved in the 'third world' .
Apart from the aspect of justice for the palestinians and thier admirable refusal to get cowed down by Israeli might,there is a religious dimension to it. Access to Masjid al Aqsa for instance.
I am awaiting your explanation of the Quranic support for Israel.Muslim understanding of the relevant verses is different.They are understood to be refering to the promise made to the Banu Israel (Israelites ) during Moses' time

i managed to take a peek. T, Anamika et. al. the reason why all your arguments are not stacking up is because of ONE simple reason. Take Justice as your argument. Why is that that you think that justice for the palestinians is more important than that of (take your pick from darfur, rwanda or what have you). Blaming the west, the ozone layer and the great crested bird in portugal is all very fine and good, but why is a muslim sitting in USA more upset about palestine rather than darfur? Why is a muslim in the UK more excited about palestinians dispossesed rather than muslims being killed in Sudan? or Bangladesh?

And, T, i found your statement that justice denied in palestine is fueling terrorism worldwide very curious. Tell me something, why is that that justice denied by others in other places does not have the same reaction? Why arent Indians carrying out terrorism in Fiji? In many ways, its aparthied and discrimination there. And how many million man marches and protest banners and stuff have you seen, my friend? Obviously, justice for some people is more disproportionately important than others. And when people point it out, rest of the incidents are totally ignored and the focus is immediately brought back on Israel (and believe you me, I know, appreciate and have commented on Israel's atrocities on Palestinians)

Now, that's for you to have a think and then perhaps you will understand why I find this disproportionate response quite amazing.


History lover, I am afraid what you now mean to tell me is that for you, its more important to protest against western imperialism rather than loss of death. I find that very curious. Tell me something, your reaction to Indian imperialism? Or the imperialism of China? Take China for example. China, at this moment, has literally erradicated islam from its country and has stamped down with a measure of oppression which is close if not more to the Israeli's. Now, my friend, tell me something, at which point and on what basis did you decide that western imperialism is more upsetting for you as a muslim than chinese imperialism?

Ever wondered why the General Assembly is toothless and a vote there is a very easy way to express solidarity with the palestinians, while a majority of countries have signed 1-2-1 agreements with USA not to participate in the ICC strictures? or that every one of those countries has signed up to the economic boycott of the Hamas govenment? My friend, dont confuse voting in the GA as a representative of what actually happens. In the greater scheme of things, even the Arabs hate the palestinians. They hate the Istraeli's more, but they hate the palestinians as well. Something for you to think about as well.

At end of the day, the damage which is being done is being done to the palestinians. All the protests and this hypocritical and disproportionate support to them is causing them to lose everything. Starting from 1948, they have had "support", and decades later, where are they? Go figure. Compare that to other dispossessed nations post WW2. See why I call this as whining?

cheers

bd

BD, seems you are purposely obfuscating issues without providing evidence to the contrary.

China is BATTLING growing Islamic extremism that is a response to its opppressive policies. Same goes for Russia in Chechnya.

Unfortunately the root of these can be IN PART traced to Palestine because the events since 1948 in that land have ensured that most of ME and much of Third World - that had initially believed and bought into notions of democracy, international law, human rights, etc has come to see them as tools of neo-imperialist control of their resources, potential and actions.

For much of the "third world," all the Israel-Palestine shows is that there is one rule for "white" people and another for everyone else. And yes, in many parts of the world (including Africa) that has also created greater anti-Semitism because countries like Indonesia are feel that while Israel behaves with impunity, they are held to a different standard.

Much of this has been discussed ad nauseum in defense, IR and international politics journals and books, although not much in the mainstream Western media. Pop into a library and you will find a wealth of research on this.

It may help ground the argument rather than talking in "pure" opinions.

Anamika

very good, we are getting somewhere then. Then, perhaps you can explain the huge divergence between the response of the muslim intelligensia to the Chinese efforts versus Israeli efforts? Despite controlling for factors such as history, number of people, type of oppression, culture, etc. you would agree that the response to these two "imperialistic" endevours is significantly different.

Why?

Well said Anamika !!!
BD ,I pointed out that palestinian has greater resonance in muslim circles and the "third world"
because it is percieved as western imperialism.

Nowhere did I imply that deaths matter less.
As for the question,why palestinian issue takes precedence over say Chechen suffering ,that has also to with the media.
See http://www.tbsjournal.com/PintakPalestine.html for instance.
The interest of many muslims is also due
that is because of the presence of masjid al -aqsa and many muslim holy sites.It invokes historical memories of Salahuddin,crusades as well as aspects of the Sirah - life of the Prophet (SAW).

I find your statement that arabs hate palestinians rather bizarre to say the least.

I never did understand as to why the Israel - Palestinian issue is seen as western imperialism ?
This is a dispute between 2 sets of people who claim to be the orginal residents of that area (or were promised the land by god or where there holy figures lived). One of them has been proving to be stronger.

BD, how well do you know Islam? You know the "qibla"? Thats when a Muslim moves his/her head in different directions at the start of a namaz? (Surely you will have seen it in Coolie if not in reality!) The FIRST direction the head is moved is in the direction of Jerusalem, and Haram al Sharif (Al Aqsa) mosque from where Muslims believe the prophet ascended to heaven. That may explain to you WHY Palestine is "more" important than China

Btw, there is huge overt and covert support for Muslims in China from other Islamic countries and societies. Has it also occurred to you that given a complete clamp down on visits to China and Chechnya, most "intellectuals" worth their salt (ie those who believe in fieldwork and not merely 2nd or 3rd hand accounts) CANNOT write on it?

Ashish - two books will help you understand why Palestine is seen as Western imperialism: Peter Mansfield's History of the Middle East, and a more recent The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East by Robert Fisk.

Thanks history lover. Oh btw, apologies for the rather shoddy and superficial explanation of the qibla...but it holds the gist. :-)

Dear all

Well...what if we did this?

We moved the whole of one state (Let us say, Bihar) and supplant them in London and move all the Londoners to say Scotland or into small ghettos within Sussex and Other coastal counties. We then pump in huge sums of money to operate an economy there for the Biharis who have been located there.

We send them nuclear missiles/ bombs et al and other weapons .

Would this be a reasonable analogy to the Israeli-Palestinian situation?

If the Britts went protesting around, would that be counted as whining?

Just a hypothetical situation!!!

rgds

Brilliant Chandra! Get rid of Bihar AND the Brits at the same time. But only if we get access to the EU trade benefits...
:-)

Anamika, I know the significance of Jerusalem to Muslims. At the same time, the city of Jerusalem and the whole state of Israel (west of the Jordan river) is the promised land that was promised to them by their gods as part of Jewish beliefs.
In fact, the compound is also the holiest site in Judaism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wailing_wall
So, as Jerusalem is venerated by muslims the world over, it is also the object of the fiercest regard by Jews.
I have some reading on this subject, and you can consider my biased, but I will never read anything by Robert Fisk. I consider it the same as reading the Frontline magazine in India.

Ashish, if you read beyond wikipedia, you will find that Jerusalem had Jewish presence even under Islamic rule (read Shohat, Tzabar, Levy, Said on this).

I have to say the idea of NOT reading someone because you have a bias is a very odd one for me. How would you KNOW what Fisk writes if you have decided not to read anything by him?

The FACT still remains that Fisk has worked for newspapers as "conservative" as the Times of London as well as a left-wing paper like the Independent. He is one of the few people alive to have covered every major conflict of the past thirty years.

You obviously have the right to not read him because of your prejudices, but then I think it is best to end this conversation. From my perspective, there can be no intellectual engagement with someone who is unable to consider material that may be contrary to their beliefs simply because such knowledge may challenge those.

Best regards

Oh, I have read enough of Fisk in the past to know that I will find it difficult to agree to anything that he says. It has been the case earlier.
It can happen many times that a person can develop an antipathy to a particular person's views.
As an example, I typically end up reading every article by Arundhati Roy in Outlook magazine even though I find myself disagreeing with a majority of what she writes. So I do consider myself open-minded, but given that all of us have a limited reading capability, I would rather read something that gives me an alternate position to what Fisk says.

As to Jerusalem having jewish presence under Islamic rule, of course, I never stated that this was the case. If this was not, and then suddenly jews from all over the world congregated and threw the arabs out, that would be equivalent to cleansing. From what I have read, a lot of the population movement in Jerusalem happened during the 2 wars of 1948 and 1967, and not as a planned activity carried out as per an Israeli plan.

history_lover.

thank you for your note. Well, about the point about the arabs hating their "guests", is anecdotal evidence which I have heard from arabs themselves, take it or leave it.

Second, thank you for confirming that the actual death avoidance and justice is not the main criteria but protesting against western imperialism and presence of muslim holy sites is the reason why israel/jews are protested against. The fact that other muslims get killed aint important, I guess. Also it aint important that more muslims are killed by muslims themselves. Now if that aint bizarre, then god only knows what is, lol/.

Anamika

so the fact that palestine is more important because of the presence of holy places, eh? And that is the reason why the muslims pay more attention to palestine than deaths in other places?

If that is indeed the reason, then I am afraid my argument stands, it dont make sense. Then what you are basically saying is that religious places are important enough to forget the proportionaility of crimes. If that is indeed the case, then the fact that Jews think of Israel as holy land will justify ethnic cleansing.

Bizarre logic to say the least.

And thank you for the book references, I have read those.

I've read the comments above with much interest. I too, find media coverage of events in this little sliver of land far beyond its apparent importance. While I think I might understand why, I'd rather not bother you all with my own understanding. It's too much fun watching temporal and Anamika hoist themselves upon their own petards in their pathetic attempts to make the Zionist régime here look far worse than it really is.

Do not mistake my meaning. Zionism had a purpose, and that purpose has been fulfilled. The State is the apotheosis of the Zionist dream. Its leaders, who constitute the secular élite ruling this country, are now devoid of a purpose; therefore, since they have no real faith in the G-d of Israel or in His vision for the destiny of the People of Israel, they enrich themselves at our expense. So they are eating the country and themselves up alive. They are like pigs at a trough. Having devoured all the food in the trough, they now satisfy their gluttony by eating the trough itself.

And the Zionist régime is violent and unjust, both to Arabs and to Jews. There is much blood on the hand of the secular leadership here. Beyond that, and apart from all that blood, there is an Arab refugee population that has been denied a real home for sixty years. While exile for three generations is a drop in the bucket when laid against Jewish history for comparison, it is still a long time.

But for all that, unless there is something far more important going on than mere injustice or violence or death, something we don't understand or perhaps want to understand, media coverage and attention to this little sliver of land is far out of proportion to the injustice, violence or death perpetrated here.

BD - you want to twist what I say or focus in on one fact without all others, feel free to do so. My comment was answering Ashish's quite honest bewilderment and the two books were meant as "introduction" references for him, not for you, although I am happy you have read them, although you may be better served by other material by Halliday, Said, Esposito, Tzabar, Shohat etc.

The qibla is the reason Palestine is MORE important to non-Palestinian Muslims than many other parts of the world on an emotional scale. Does that necessarily translate to individual action or state policy is however completely different and varies in degrees - it doesn't for example mean so much to Indian Muslims as to spark off action. Generally it is one more factor cited amongst many others.

What the land means to the Palestinians and why it is fought for is VERY much a colonial issue and is seen as such by the people themselves, and a lot of others who have watched the area for more than just a couple of years.

I have said this before and will REPEAT it: Most Palestinians call themselves Usman's shirt because of the divergence in interests between them and other Islamic STATES.

Btw, how the violence within that socieity has ratcheted up in direct proportion to Israeli state oppression is something most ME scholars and analysts will agree on (and funnily enough a lot of current generation of Israeli scholars are beginning to voice privately).

I hope you are not discounting the basic reality of multiple motivations for or interests in any cause or event?

On the other hand, you say: "If that is indeed the case, then the fact that Jews think of Israel as holy land will justify ethnic cleansing."

Glad that you think Israel is carrying out ethnic cleansing of Palestinians! :-)

Anamika

Thank you for your note. Basically, my thesis, that the muslims pay a disproportionate interest to the palestinians is borne out quite clearly. Whether its humiliation or the fact that its the quibla, it remains disproportionate. Also, because of this disproportionateness, it harms them. Nothing that you have said has changed that thesis.

As I said before, a piece of basic research methodology is to control for other variables while perturbing one variable. On that basis, your words simply provide further confirmation to the above thesis.

As for the jews, I am also happy that you are also supporting the jews in taking over israel based upon religious factors just like the palestinians are doing so to the jews in israel based upon religious factors. If not support, then you understand their motivations.

I fail to see why it would make you happy that me saying that jews are carrying out ethnic cleansing? Were you keeping some kind of a record? or were you looking for corroboration? If you had read the above comments, you would have noted my interjection about 1948. Bit strange that, but I think we have now reached the end of this debate. At the same time, the poor muslims disproportionate interest in palestine keeps on harming them disproportionately.

cheers

bd

Thanks Ruvy!!!

BD

Whether ordinary Arabs like or dislike Palestinians cannot be debated on the basis of hearsay. So I will leave it. You have quoted historical events to suggest that PLO was responsible for many civil wars. Except for Jordan I dont think it holds true for others. Even the Jordan civil war can also be linked to the Pan-Arabism of Nasser.

Darfur is irrelevant to this debate not because it is not important but because nobody cares, so let us not mix things up.

The transplantation of a large number of white skinned individuals from one continent to another has not happened anywhere else in the 20th century. It is contrary to what happened during that tim.

I think the debate is getting too complicated with too much data. I guess it largely reflects the situation in the middle east. Having said that, it is a big leap of faith for Israel to get out of Palestine territories but it has to do it. Over and above it needs to get its illegal settlers out of both west bank and gaza. The whole world will then combine to teach Hamas and Fatah a lesson of their lives if we still see suicide bombers dropping by Israel everyday.
But they need to exit and fast.

Chandra,

You write,

"The transplantation of a large number of white skinned individuals from one continent to another has not happened anywhere else in the 20th century. It is contrary to what happened during that time." (bold letters are my emphasis)

Anamika, in an entirely different thread writes,

"Thanks Sandeep - appreciated this post. People forget or not know the Sanskrit texts, or forget the fact that "whiteness" has been linked to power and status for over a thousand years in north India - colonial times didn't begin with the European, but also with the lighter skinned Turks, Persians, Afghans etc. Hopefully we will eventually get over it and go back to valuing all variations as the Sanskrit texts do." (again, bold letters are my emphasis)

We do not need any fancy analyses to figure out what is really being said here. You resent white people! White people screwed over India centuries ago (Anamika's point), they colonized Africa and India not too long ago, and now, because my skin is lighter than yours, my return to my homeland makes me a white invader of "Palestine"!

I don't need to read the Rig Vedas or get headaches trying to figure out cultural concepts of Hinduism to understand why so many Hindus resent Jews coming home. It's called "Crow Jim!"

"Damned honkies are where they don't belong! They should get the hell out and stay where they do belong!"

Got it, babe! I read you loud and clear! Thanks, Chandra!

Dear Ruvy

Using inappropriate labels to describe us is not going to be very useful.

People here are discussing points of view, not running a discussion on how bad white people are. We are far more confident and successful than to waste our time on resenting a race or ethnic group. Stop being paranoid mate.

If you feel that it is unfair to describe the formation of Israel as transplanation of Europeans, please debate that with facts rather than labelling us.

regards

Ruvy, hindus don't hate jews, heck we have the most accommodating religion, many go to churches, even to dargahs, gurdwaras etc. Antisemitism just doesn't figure into the day to day thought of any hindu or any Indian as a matter of fact.

I live in a small village next to Bangalore and despite the close proximity to the most thriving urban center most lead very simple day to day lives. In a country where most don't even know their Prime Minster's name the concept of hating a country whose existence they are unaware of is simply ludicrous:)

Hi Dee,

U are exactly right. Most people dont even have the time to be Anti-semitic or political.

Its blatant stupidity and a sign of ignorance (which i must say is quite boorish) to say that Hindus hate Jews.

I dont understand why many of my Jewish friends are so against criticism of the slightest kinds, much like my few fundamentalist islamic friends :)

No offence meant to anyone though!!

Shanthi Shanthi Shanthi Om :)

beady:

the "debate" has run its course?

QED?

sure:)

meanwhile the occupation and injustices in the name of gods continues while we look for brownie points

;)

Okay, Chandra,

Lat's look at the labels just a bit.

"The transplantation of a large number of white skinned individuals from one continent to another has not happened anywhere else in the 20th century. It is contrary to what happened during that time." (bold letters are my emphasis)

These are your labels, not mine. My label is Jew, or Child of Israel. So, you have improperly labelled me. White skin, dark skin? Who gives a rat's ass? I don't. But you do.

This is not an issue of race at all.

Jews, a part of the Children of Israel, are a Nation and a religion, not a race. The word "'Am," which means nation or people, is the cognate of the Arabic "'umma," and combines the meanings of nation and religion, just as Arabic "'umma" does. The idea of Zionism was to give a home to this nation, which had been driven from its home 1,400 years earlier, and to allow its religion to be practiced freely, rather than under the oppression of Christians and Moslems. Zionism, as it was originally conceived, was to provide a refuge for persecuted Jews - Jews in Eastern Europe and the Arab world. Zionists warned, correctly, that for Jews to stay in exile would lead to their death or disappearance due to assimilation.

American Jews are being assimilated through intermarriage and are disappearing. Were there little intermarriage, instead of the 50 to 80% rate that prevails, the number of American Jews would be something like 20,000,000. At the most generous estimates, that number is 6½ million, and more likely 5.3 million - and declining. Six million European Jews were killed by the Nazis, and 800,000 Jews fled the Arab world shortly after independence of Israel. About 1,100,000 Jews (I'm winging on the numbers, not trying to exaggerate) came here after WWII, and 500,000 had arrived here before WWII.

Jews chose to come home as a national movement, because there is no replacement for Israel and its soil, particularly in terms of religion and religious practices. About one third of the 613 commandments that bind us require us to be present here in order to perform them.

At the beginning of the last century, there were a couple hundred thousand Arabs living here, numbers that began to grow as Jews brought prosperity to the country, and Arabs immigrated (with the approval and encouragement of the British) after the establishment of the Mandate.

Here we come to a very important point. In 1934, the Labor Zionists won control of the Zionist Executive, and they were hostile to religious Jews and to the Jewish religion, generally. This had bloody consequences immediately, in terms of who got to get to safety from Nazi persecution, but it also came to make a big difference in 1967.

It may well have been the plan of the Zionist executive to attempt to drive all the Arabs from this country once a stable Jewish majority existed, but events did not allow for this in 1948, and in 1967, with thousands of Arabs at the bridges of the River Jordan, seeking to cross over as refugees, Moshe Dayan ordered the destruction of those bridges. Had the Arabs fled, Judea and Samaria would have been empty once more, and the religious vision of occupying the Temple Mount, building a synagogue there, if not a Temple, and of settling the land entirely would have come to fruition with no difficulty at all.

But the hostility of the Labor Zionists to the religious vision of the Nation of Israel prevented all that. This was not at all clear in the exhuberant heady days after the Six Day War. But it became clear in 1971-72 and afterwards in arguments over how and where to settle the territory liberated from the Jordanians in 1967.

Dayan's actions in blowing up the Jordan River bridges were decisive in creating the situation we have today in Judea and Samaria. It laid the groundwork for a pattern of discrimination against Arabs in employment, wages and countless other issues, discrimination that would have not occurred had these Arabs fled the country.

To be blunt, just as Jews are responsible for the welfare of fellow Jews, Arabs are responsible for the welfare of fellow Arabs. That is how we look at the world. The Arab 'umma has chosen to fail in their responsibility to take care of their brothers who fled this land. They have chosen to use these Arabs as pawns to create a situation of artificial ghettos in Arab countries.

This they did in 1949, and have continued to do since 1949. One of these results has been civil war in Lebanon, civil war in Jordan, the use of Saddam Hussein of these Arabs to persecute Kuwaitis (also fellow Arabs who had invested large amounts of money in helping the Arabs who fled this country) with the result being that the Kuwaitis have kicked them out. Much of the misery of the Arabs who fled Mandate Palestine has been inflicted on them by Egyptians, Lebanese, "Iraqis," "Jordanians" and finally Kuwaitis. With "brothers" like these, I'm damned glad I'm not an Arab.

Frankly, the question of whether our control over our own country is legal in your eyes in of little interest to me. That is not the issue. What the world thinks is not as important as what we do. That is one of the big lessons that our own government has allowed itself to forget - to the detriment of every Israeli, and to the great cost of every Israeli. But the Zionist government, the mafia of the secular elite, has decided that the State was to be its apotheosis, and that the Redemptive goal of the the faith of Israel in its G-d was to be ignored and if at all possible, prevented. That is the real situation in this country and the contour of the ideological split that racks it today.

A situation like this was predicted by Chief Rabbi Kook, z"l, who spoke in the 1920s' of the leadership losing faith and being willing to compromise on the goal of creating a true homeland. He was right. The ruling elite has lost its way, and has no guiding light anymore. Not only is it willing to compromise on creating a true homeland ignored, the government is a den of corruption. The corruption is not as bad as that which plagues India or Pakistan, but it is bad for us. Finally, it has abandoned fellow Jews. Soldiers in enemy hands are left in enemy hands, people who were told by the sitting prime minister that "they were as much part of Israel as Tel Aviv" were abandoned and betrayed by him. Ariel Sharon is paying the price for his actions. He rots now in a hospital, sitting between life and death. Go look at my articles at this site to get a better idea of how I view all this.

ruvy:

My label is Jew, or Child of Israel.

please complete this:

My label is Jew, or Child of Israel, according to MY GOD


then i will take this up with the muslim god and the christian god and other gods and see if they agree

salam

Ok, its all t's fault for opening up this topic again! :)

Chandra #49 and T.

I didn't say PLO were solely responsible. I said they cause issues. Jordan's case can also be directly linked to the PLO. We can quibble over it, but given the fact that you have arab countries signing peace treaties evidences the amount of support the palestinians have.

Actually, Darfur IS extremely important. Look down this thread. Where was the angst on the muslims killed? Nowhere. Where was the attention paid? On Israel. Again, muslims are being killed, more by their own kin than by others, and that's not important. What's important? It's the humiliation of the arabs by Israel or the fact that Al Quds is under the control of Israel. I have received a huge number of responses on this article, and I think there was only one person who sighed and said it was a crying shame on the aspect of muslims killing muslims (and that was TBS).

You see, my issue is this. As long as muslims look at the world in this shape and form, they will keep on being the tail and never the dog, they will always be the reactive end and never the active end. Comparatively speaking, while the attention is placed disproportionately on Israel and Palestine, rest of the world powers ahead and frankly doesn't give a toss about the other deaths of muslims. A shia-sunni plot is brewing very nicely and nobody pays any attention to that. Just the mere murmur of zionism and foam starts getting generated.

To what end? There is simply no consistency nor principles in the battles that are being fought. And as I mentioned before, this makes the muslims losers.

T, your final comment. I was getting a bit tired, because the debate was going down the same old same old useless debate over israel and palestine. There is no solution and we are certainly not going to resolve it here on this thread. Where we can actually break new ground, how to handle blue on blue killings or friendly fire, is not being discussed. Arab and Muslim leaders, imperialistic powers ranging from China to Russia to France, UK, USA, up and coming powers such as India and Australia, for the past 60 years, has merrily played the ummah for a fool, by distracting the famed arab (or as it now emerges, the muslims street). I see my country's Indian Muslim brothers. Here's a small experiment, see what's the reason behind most of their processions. What made them hit the street? Israel, Palestine, Mohammad's cartoons, Saddam's execution. Then you read the Sacchar report. And, well, I heaved a big sigh. I am seriously not trying to earn brownie points here, mate. I am trying to show them how or what the world is seeing them as. I have to live in this ever smaller world as well and I have to bring up my kids. I cannot, in all honesty, sleep well at night, when we are facing these issues. There are signs of life, kefaya in Egypt was good, but that seems to have dribbled away, kuwait showed signs of life, but that died. Lebanon, .......

And before anybody says that I am pro-Israel, TBS (who is a much better google artise) can point to salties which I have criticised Israel. I admire the Jews and Israel for many things. There are many things to be criticised. And its my belief that a country founded on religion and having minorities cannot survive in the long run, whether it be Israel or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. The inconsistencies are just too glaring.

Ok, phew, enough already :)

whoa, T, the jewish, christian and muslim god is the same!!!!, why would you say that they are different? :)

they certainly aren't

read a slew of past posts to my friend ruvy

he invokes god when he runs out of arguments defence;)

and i kid him about whose god?

:)


and yes as i mentioned once, my god is not the same as ruvy's, osama bin bush's or bush bin osama's -- for my god smiles

and beady as for brownie points

you paint them all as one

and

to me it is intellectual procrastination

ummah only exists as a figment in the mind of those who deride islam - the so called orientalists AND sadly, also a figment in the mind of extremist muslims such as osama omar etc

in reality ummah and phoenix both don't fly -mahajirzadeh

;)

T

that's a bit of a philosophical or if I may, an anthropological question. On what basis does a group exist? Self identification? outsider identification? I wrote about it a bit back in another contentious and debatable article :), remember? http://desicritics.org/2006/05/06/000601.php

and this self identification is growing, not reducing, mate :)

cheers

bd

and to a lesser degree, here

http://piquancy.blogspot.com/2003/08/history-is-vast-early-warning-system.html

beady:

On what basis does a group exist? Self identification? outsider identification?

in this instance....and with all the examples you have given showing muslim apathy towards the murder and killing of other muslims by themselves and by others...iraq, darfur, chechenya etc the answer is crystal clear

which is why ummah is thrust upon them as mahajirzadeh says so succinctly

;)

T, thrust upon them? look at the examples, my friend, take 2 of the recent ones, tell me why the reaction to the cartoons and the palestinian question is so widespread? If that isnt group behaviour, then what is?

See this definition, a group is usually defined as a collection consisting of a number of humans or animals, who share certain aspects, interact with one another, accept rights and obligations as members of the group and share a common identity. Commonly used in sociology or in anthropology. Based upon this definition, history, common behaviour, rights/obligations, common reactions, I would say that the ummah as a group exists.

Check out the first link which I pasted 3 odd response back, we debated it there as well, mate.

cheers

bd

Deepti,

I didn't say anything about Hindus hating Jews. They don't appear to, unless they've picked up Jew-hatred from Christians or Moslems who do.

Skin color is apparently a big deal to a lot of you. There are several articles on the site dealing with that issue. I feel stupid for not having realized this earlier.

What finally dawned on me from Chandra's comment #49 is that if you look on TV and you see the élite that runs this country, what you see are "white men." White men are not popular in your country, and for good reason. Thus, it is not too hard to paint Israelis as just another variety of a plundering white man - a neo-colonialist, land stealing, ethnic cleansing genocidal persecutor of the not-so-white Palestinians, who supposedly look more like you. That is the not so subtle underlying message that I NOW see when I read Anamika's rants about how morally disgusting I am.

Not only am I a plundering WHITE land thief in her eyes, I have the temerity to dare to be proud of it, too. The fact that they I'm Jewish is almost an irrelevancy to her.

You may not see things that way, but it sure as heck explains a lot of what I read here.

Temporal,

If your "'umma" don't fly, that's your problem. The "'am" does, and is a very real concept.

Sounds to me like you Moslems have some serious thinking to engage in. More to the point, it sounds to me like Arabs have some very serious delusional fantasies to get rid of if the 'umma is only a figment in the imagination of the Wahhabi crazies...

Oh, yeah. If you want to get an idea of Who MY G-d is, read the first two commandments of the Ten Commandments in the book of Exodus, and to get an idea of what we want from Him, read Psalm 83.

Cheers!

beady:

and if that were so what about the flip side?

tell me why the reaction to the cartoons and the palestinian question is so widespread? If that isnt group behaviour, then what is?

IF there is a singular ummah as you suggest then where is it on iraq, darfur, chechenya and other hot spots?

as i said in that link you provided

this Ummah is a whipping construct of the various groups

and it is so easy to whip the disenfranchised

:)

Dee:

Ruvy is right I didn't say anything about Hindus hating Jews.

Though he did write in 50:

I don't need to read the Rig Vedas or get headaches trying to figure out cultural concepts of Hinduism to understand why so many Hindus resent Jews coming home. (my bold)

ruvy 65:

please do not insult indian intelligence!

the issue is not white, brown or black

the issue is justice, occupation, apartheid, ghettoisation, bantustisation

ruvy 66:

i know who your god is

He is the one who told you to occupy that land!


my palestinian friend's God tells them differently

He tells them you are nothing but occupiers

and then there are other Gods too

salam

:)

Ruvy: "The fact that they I'm Jewish is almost an irrelevancy to her."

Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah,hallelujah, hallelujah,

And so forth....

Now get over it already!

Using Ruvy's figures about Jews migrating to Palestine: "500,000 had arrived here before WWII." AND UN figures estimate that between 500,000 and 700,000 Palestinians were made homeless by the NAQBA in 1948. Guess now we know who lives in those old houses....

Ruvy: "I don't need to read the Rig Vedas or get headaches trying to figure out cultural concepts of Hinduism to understand why so many Hindus resent Jews coming home."

Sounds like Zionist superiority when MY culture gives you a HEADACHE! What ARE you doing on DC then, if you can't be bothered to LEARN ANYTHING ABOUT US? Sounds like fanaticism to me.

Ruvy, there are so many varied opinions on DC, don't you think its foolhardy to make such strong assumptions based on your tussle with a few people here?:)

India is a truly democratic country and our government reflects the will of the people. Nothing is more precious to a poor man than his voting right and most get to exercise them at their local levels.

Everyone is welcome on DC whatever be their opinions, race, culture and yes, in hot debates a lot is said and sometimes it makes us change our opinions and at other times makes us believe in our cause more fervently:)

Very interesting and thought provoking article Mr. BD.

Don't you think the marked difference between the Jewish-Palastinian conflict as oppose to others in Sudan, Uganda, Indonesia, Thailand and even Sri Lanka is that it is between two nations?

And that we all prescribe to the general (mis)conception that a nation should have a land? That other conflicts (most of them are post colonial resultants) are internal and civil wars?

Don't you think when pepole are killed in a war between nations in contrast to a civil war where subjects are killed in an internal war in a country, the reaction is obviously overblown.

To simplify that, it is okay for Muslims to kill other Muslims but...?

t 67#, unfortunately, the flip side is explained here, where you see a disproportionate response to darfur. While that is a sin of omission, still, the utter silence about say darfur compared to palestine is another example of a gestalt, mate.

Here's a small experiment for you, see which other religious group is exercised in this fashion to elements of common theological origin! :)

cheers

bd

#72. I am afraid it doesnt work like that. (1) Comparatively speaking, there were very little number of jews who actively moved into arab housing. (2) you got to remember that quite a lot of old israel was kibbutizm; (3) urban areas picked up a lot of population transfers; (4) dont assume there is a direct 1-2-1 link between individuals and houses.

Cheers

bd

#75 die hard.

its a strange situation, this israeli-palestinian issue which has over the admittedly wide mind. I cannot explain it, neither humiliation nor the presence of sacred places really explains this.

There are other issues with other religions, such as in somalia with the christian army, in kashmir with the alledged hindu army, in bosnia and chechnya, again with a christian army, so on and so forth, but they dont have the same cachet.

Neither does a challenge around muslims being killed as I have talked about before.

PLO was mainly secular although arafat went all jihadi towards the end when competing with hamas, just like saddam did. Ah! well

And how do you define nations? The janjaweed obviously do think that they define a separate nation compared to the black darfurians. On what basis would you judge a group's national identification or even the desire for a homeland which is age old?

cheers

bd

This below is from Avigdor Lieberman, the Deputy PM of Israel (the rest of the interview can be found in the Der Spiegel):

"Wherever in the world there are two languages, two religions, two people, there are tensions and conflicts: in Québec in Canada, in the former Yugoslavia, in the Russian Caucasus or in Northern Ireland where the confessions have fought each other for many years. It is crystal clear: The more homogeneous a country is, the better it develops."

The passage is quite similar to many in Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.

I laughed - despite the sick fanaticism of this man (his interviews to the Israeli press are really rabid) - because India defies this worldview in every sense. :-)

The Problem with all of us and society in general is that we always believe that we are right and others are wrong and that since "I" have studied and evaluated everything, "my" position is singularly correct.

That sounds more like all of us are Gods.

That is why i am unable to understand the extreme views. I mean the way I see it, both Israelis and Palestinians/ Arabs are responsible for where they are.

This is very similar to our fight with Pakistan. The moment we stopped getting at our throats the economies are booming. Is that too much of a coincidence? That apart I think if we were to find ways to work out solutions, one can find a solution to all problems. But that would start with acceptance that may be "the others" are right in some of their points. Now, how can I accommodate that is a more valid question? We are so paranoid we refuse to admit our fears and refuse to listen to others. Frankly it is such a waste of time. That is the really the lesson from western Europe, for 60 years they haven't been