Desicritics Comments on The Promised Land – As Promised in the Three Holy Books

Comment by temporal

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:56:05 EST

durgesh: if it is in the kindness of your heart (surely you have one?) then please forgive me for not discussing other minorities in this thread however now that you have raised these important issues please understand that i favour justice and all that flows from it ... like equality before local law .. the UNHRB etc. for all minorities everywhere - and that includes bangladesh, india as well as the army occupied pakistan and will have to disagree with you on this: to wit - occupied palestine is about justice, occupation, bantustisation (ghettoisation), apartheid ps: only beady's threat to invoke goodwin prevents me from mentioning the moustachioed ex subaltren ;)

Comment by bd

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:47:23 EST

Oh! yes, glowing in the dark, lol, well, it will certainly have an interesting conversational piece. on the other hand, perhaps the palestinians might want to do what the others did, accept defeat and slink away :). that's also another way! :) cheers bd

Comment by Durgesh

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:31:56 EST

Dear Mr. T, Please light up a candle, get out of the sad poutry spouting ritual, go out of the damn room and start seeking justice for millions of non-muslims minorities suppressed and killed in muslim countries. Start out with raising questions about the hindu minority in pakiland and bangladesh. Do please save your breath on Palestine. You might get go heartattack. Palestine is not about the issues you raise like a jungle drumbeat: justice, occupation, bantustisation (ghettoisation), apartheid. It is more about bankrupt and morally corrupt oil states funding jehad against non-muslims. Do please chew on this article in your free time: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359796269&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter Have fun dude.

Comment by temporal

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:17:26 EST

beady: understand your disillusion! but poets (and fools) are not daunted by a 'single step' in the right direction if we give up on the devi of hope we will end up glowing in the dark - from their problem it will become ours

Comment by bd

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:13:41 EST

I love hornet's nests! :) But I cant see your last point happening. I mean, why would it happen? lol, each and every permanent member of the UNSC is by itself guilty of the same, so why would they do so???? And as for the religion, lol, can you see Poland, Saudi Arabia, or Israel doing so? come on, mate.

Comment by temporal

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:28:14 EST

bd (various) see the hornet's nest?;) am sure pretty soon we will be discussing reforming the UNSC! the issue of justice is not a pandora's box nor is it an idealistic rambling while ana has made sensible suggestions in #40 it is still a long shot meanwhile we can consider a small but significant step forward by considering ways to encourage the state/s (occupying, representative or unrepresentative but de-facto powers nevertheless) to enforce the UNHR's Bill in full for every person in their state regardless of their religion or status that would be a step forward in providing ultimate justice and needless to say this "encouragement" should be backed by all the legal and moral "force" the international community can bear on such state/s

Comment by temporal

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:20:18 EST

ruvy: #16 ?

Comment by Anamika

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:56:07 EST

The phrase you are looking for is "a pox on all their houses!!!" :) The bard said it best! Yes indeed! :-)

Comment by BD

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 06:48:32 EST

A The phrase you are looking for is "a pox on all their houses!!!" :) But here's something to consider. Take the post WW2 period and look at ALL the instances where refugees have been created, dispossesion occured and somebody took over somebody else's land. And there have been tons of situations like this. Whether you are looking at Bangladesh, Vietnam, East Timor, etc. etc. As you said, somebody has to give way. You say Israel as the stronger should give way. The problem is, Israel doesnt see itself as the stronger. And there are good arguments to believe that. Ah! interesting times indeed! :)

Comment by Anamika

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:34:10 EST

BD - totally agree with the problems and constraints. The problem of course is that Israel has stopped considering the two-state solution, and over time (since the naqba and specially since the first intifadah) the Palestinian stand (note: that is DIFFERENT from an "Arab" (sic) stand) has hardened too. To be Gandhian about it, SOMEONE has to break that descent into violence and genocide, and it has to come from the two parties involved. The reality is that the strong should take the daring step - something that Israel would have to do in this case. Unfortunately I don't see that happening at any point in our lifetimes. Going back to land being promised to people by god: just how absolutely ridiculous human beings can get! I love the fact that Shiites have the "hidden" imam who will "re-appear;" the Sunnis have the "dar-ul-Islam" that will one day be established; the Christians have the "rapture" and apocalypse; and the Jews have their "messiah" being born from the "line of David" (read note from Ruvy above - but there is other evidence too). Frankly the three deserve each other! Or should we say revelations of irrationality all around!

Comment by BD

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:36:26 EST

Ruvy you are right, I should be more clear, but my response to JD was more in jest than seriousness! cheers bd

Comment by Chandra

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:22:26 EST

The following is an excellent piece of analysis on Hinduism. You may agree or disagree, but quite interesting....... www.cultuurwetenschap.be/DOWNLOADS/AKingdomofAnotherWorld.pdf

Comment by Chandra

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:20:13 EST

Ruvy...Thanks..I have never seen this data before. Temporal...No I dont believe there are any divine rights!!! Having said that, we are not talking about me here, but about a group of people who probably do so. When it comes to conflict resolution one needs to start with what the two parties believe in and try to find middle ground rather than force fit what I or anybody else believes... rgds

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:14:25 EST

Bd, I'm not taking issue with you because you appear to be the typical non-religious writer almost taking the side of Israel. But, "its God who gave the land to the Israeli's," is just plain wrong. While I do appreciate the balance in your writing, I really do wish you would get your definitions straight. In these ruminations upon the destiny of the People of Israel, I set forth several definitions that give some clarity to the issue. Put simply, the Biblical text states that G-d gave this land to the Children of Israel, the descendants of Jacob, the son of Isaac, who was the son of Abraham. JEWS do not get mentioned at all in the Tana"kh until you reach the Book of Esther, which describes Mordekhai as a "Yehudi" (Jew) from the tribe of Benyam�n. The story of Esther takes place AFTER the destruction of the Temple of Shlomo, and the destruction of the Kingdom of Yehud�, which was ruled continually by descendants of King David. Just for your information, there are still families in Israel who can trace their descent from the royal house of Dav�d. From one of these families will emerge the future king of Israel, the messiah promised in prophecy.

Comment by BD

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 03:45:19 EST

and she comes through!, here's the bit which the saudi's use to keep the infidels away from the hijaz 9:17, 9:18, 9:28. so go figure, mate. As it so happens, this is also the religious basis which Osama Bin Laden used in his fulminations against the americans and other assorted infidels who dared to sully the fair soil of KSA. cheers bd

Comment by BD

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 03:34:19 EST

and tbs has promised that there is a sura/quote about how the hijaz has been promised to the muslims, she is currently after the reference :) that's the problem with tbs, she dribbles out these pearls of wisdom so carefully!!!! :(

Comment by BD

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 03:21:44 EST

Anamika, we are going to fall over on the first bit itself. The United Nations Resolutions, the ones which you refer to, are not binding as per the chapters they are under. Also, under the Oslo agreement, the prior resolutions are null and void. We can debate that for a long time, but lets get back to more important stuff. If we are looking at land claims, for example, there are land claims emanating from ottoman times, french mandate times, british mandate times, jordanian times, israeli military law and israeli civilian law and finally PA law. At this moment, there is NO corpus of law which can handle a situation like this. So we need a directive from the UNSC under chapter 7. Assuming that it goes ahead (and that's a big IF), then a court has to be called in with adjudication abilities. What you normally do is to utilise commercial services, for example, and yes, the Hague can be used (although I cant see the Israeli's ever trusting any European court, I wouldnt!, frigging idiots, lol). You have already identified the other reasons why the israeli's wont accept such a legal structure and wont consider it to be fair. And finally, I am not sure who will enforce it? A court directs "somebody" to enforce it. Who in their right minds will send in policemen? The Europeans? no way. The Americans? They arent trusted by the Palestinians. The Arab League / OIC? not trusted by the Israeli's. The AU is a joke. The BRIC? Brazil possibly, but count out India, Russia and China. So the conclusion that we draw (as so many people have drawn before), it is not possible to find a "just" "fair" solution which appeals to all parties. So what now? What would you suggest be done? In a situation like this, you have to IMPOSE injustice on SOMEBODY to provide JUSTICE to SOME OTHER BODY. So, to go back to T's point. If you provide justice to the palestinians, you will also be asked to provide justice to the Israeli's. While you might be able to get the secular and left wing israeli's and some right wing israeli's over tyo your side, you wont be able to get the (1) Hamas hot heads nor the (2) israeli hot heads over to your side because of their maximalist position. And if you are really independent, you wont be able to do so. So, what then happens to Justice for all?

Comment by BD

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 03:19:54 EST

tbs and A, my book is work in progress, its tentatively titled as "the current testament of BDRAN" :) I cant see why Mo, Jesus and others can have all the fun! :)

Comment by BD

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 03:18:53 EST

JD, please dont take it out on me, mate, as it so happens, its God who gave the land to the Israeli's, as evidenced in the above mentioned argument. I suggest you take your exception to Him :) But seriously, the descent from abraham or adam (as the case might be) is not in doubt. The question is who was what given over to? Think about Saudi Arabia :), its only for muslims, no? :)

Comment by JD

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 01:00:46 EST

"To your descendants I have given this land..." As Muslims, Jews and Christians are all the descendants of Abraham, I take exception to the idea that Palestine is for Jews alone. I'll bet it's not an idea that originated with Muslims and Christians.

Comment by Anamika

Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:31:14 EST

Once again Ruvy decides "who" counts as "real" Jews as opposed to allowing people to determine their OWN identity. BD: Here go some suggestions, although these are by no means prescriptive or definitive: 1. which law will be used? How about the series of 20th century international laws including the various UN resolutions (that includes the MANY that have been blocked by US as the sole dissenter in favour of Israel). 2. where would it be based? The Hague as the centre for IJC. Or Geneva as a neutral space? In terms of the actual borders - reverting to pre-1967 is a relatively equitable idea. Of course Israelis would not accept this - NOT for religious reasons but REAL geostrategic reasons including water resources of the West Bank (few people talk about it in the media but its been amply covered by environmental groups, NGOs and UNDP). 3. who will be the judges? An international coalition that is acceptable to BOTH sides and represents a mix of Western and nonWestern countries. It could include the Group of 4 and ALSO the various Arab states and the other members of BRIC (specially Brazil, India and China which have little immediate stake). 4. who will enforce the judgement? See above. Just ideas! Btw, I agree with TBS - what book are we talking about? :-)

Comment by tbs

Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:15:50 EST

bd, fairness in your book, grins, which book would that be? ;)

Comment by bd

Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:15:43 EST

actually I must be precise here, there are not just 2 parties in israel, there are the druze, the armenians, the catholics, the jews, the bahai, the secular palestinians, the fatah, force 17, hamas, islamic jihad, egypt, lebanon, syria, jordan...... :) fair to all of them? I might as well as go about trying to resolve the problem of global warming!, lol

Comment by bd

Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:12:53 EST

whoops Ruvy, my bad, I did a typo on your name, my apologies. I meant you and temporal on the godwin law :) cheers bd

Comment by bd

Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:11:45 EST

you mentioned a "fair court of justice". Ok, solomon temporal, i ask you, tell me the fair court of justice that you will setup to adjudicate the israeli palestinian argument :) 1. which law will be used? 2. where would it be based? 3. who will be the judges? 4. who will enforce the judgement? and fairness in my book means that both sides will agree to the answers to the above :) cheers bd