Subscribe to Desicritics
Islamophobia - Organisation of Islamic Countries Report
Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta
Islamophobia exists and is steadily getting worse. A phobia is a strong irrational or powerful fear and dislikes of something, in this case, the religion of Islam. This phobia has attained such strong levels, that the Organisation of Islamic Countries has commissioned and recently released an Annual Report on Islamophobia. On reading the report, I was torn between two feelings; the first was serious concern about Islamophobia in the world and second was sheer bewilderment at the OIC as to how they help propagate the very Islamophobia that they want to eliminate.
I have spoken about Islamophobia before and have been warning about its prevalence for some time now. And regretfully, the situation is far from improving; instead it is getting worse. One can see that just looking at the rise in terrorist attacks and hate crimes, lurid headlines, anti-Semitic attacks in Europe in retaliation, etc. And the more this happens; the less the space becomes for moderates on both sides.
As I warned before, the world knows about the demonisation of a minority and knows what happens if that monster is let loose. We have seen that behaviour against Jews, Muslims, Christians, Blacks, Browns, Yellows, Hindus, Irish, English, Tutsi, you name it, it has happened. If there is a minority, the chances are that phobias, discrimination, genocide etc. against them have been in play.
So if you look at the report, the worry is clear. Muslims around the world are definitely in the cross-hairs of a variety of people. And you can very well see that in the pronouncements of some of the wilder variety of some politicians across the world; the subtle demonisation of Muslims in the mainstream, tabloid, and online media; and the increase in attacks on Muslims (or even Sikhs who these attackers thought that they looked like Muslims).
So yes, that definitely needs to be sorted out. From what I understand, the OIC asked for an annual report on Islamophobia to be tabled at the annual sessions of the OIC. The authors of this report are not clear nor are the terms of reference of this report.
But first the good points in the document. Yes, there are some good points in there. For example, the authors have collected a good selection of Islamophobia research sources. A reasonably good selection of political Islamophobic statements has also been collected in Section 2.1 and they have also done a good survey on what people have done to combat Islamophobia from a governmental, NGO and individual perspectives in section 1.6.
They also talk about how inter-faith initiatives have been established, which can at best improve inter-faith relations and at worst, not do any harm. The majority of the recommendations in the conclusion of Part I that they made to combat Islamophobia are quite bang on target and make pretty good sense. They should be read by anybody who is interested in this rather dreadful phenomenon. Section 1.5 specially is a very good overview of the situation of Muslims in Europe and USA, although some inconsistencies should have been addressed in a better way, such as praising Pope Benedict XVI in Section 3.5, but fulminating against him on page 3.
Looking at the document, I would conclude that this was done by some under-graduates from a 3rd grade university hidden in a country-side somewhere, who have no idea about modern life and have suddenly stumbled upon the internet with their first lesson being Google search. As a result, this document starts off with the best of intentions and ends up rather fanning Islamophobia instead of helping to reduce it. It suffers from the following major defects:
- Total misunderstanding of the basic principle of Freedom of Speech. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to irritate and upset others. Freedom of speech does not include the right to discriminate against others though. For example, I can take the mickey out of suicide bombers wanting virgins and ending up with raisins. Or you can call me an infidel and say your religion is better than mine. These are completely acceptable, I have no issues. But you cannot tell others to kill me nor can I tell others to kill you. That is incitement to violence. The author seems to have deep intellectual issues in understanding this basic matter.
- Confusing racism with Islamophobia. Race belongs to a genetic category generally exhibited on the basis of a physical appearance. Islamophobia is a fear of Islam. Two totally different things. While in certain cases (such as black Muslims), they might blow over into being the same, but to confuse both of them as one shows muddled thinking. Muslims are not a race, and they do include a variety of different races and ethnic groups.
- Methodological and terminological confusion, which emerges from seriously flawed selection of incidents and coverage of incidents. Almost 50% of the incidents noted in the Appendix are not Islamophobic in nature, but belong to the category of freedom of speech or simple crime category. Islamophobia exists already without trying to add to it.
- A totally wrong emphasis on legal protections. They try to go deep into legal aspects of various conventions and institutions. But you see, those are already established, anti-discrimination laws exist, anti-violence laws exist anti-incitement laws exist and they are sufficient. For example, they are talking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and completely forget that they themselves have repudiated it and have come up with a Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. Here’s an idea! How about the OIC signing up to and transcribing to domestic law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as most of the rest of the world has done?
- Be very careful about complaining about being a victim, because it only stands up when you yourself have not victimised someone else. Now if you look at the OIC minorities, one can come up with many examples of victimisation that they themselves have done. And we are talking about Muslims victimising Muslims here, forget about non-Muslims. Ranging from Shia, Sunni, Ahmadi, Baha’i, Ismaili, Darfurians and then all the way to the other side like Jews, Christians, Hindus Buddhists, etc. have been victimised in OIC countries. Now, consider the reaction if such a report on anti-Baha'i or anti-Shia or anti-Semitic discrimination is presented at the OIC? How about considering the fact that many if not most current anti-Semitic attacks in Europe are carried out by European Muslims?
- A totally imbalanced view of history. This entire report was so imbalanced in terms of its historical coverage that one does not even know where to start. What about the entry of Islam into the Caucasian world? Or the Chinese area? How about how it managed the entry and existence in South Asia and Africa? Islam has perhaps victimised more in many countries and regions than had been victimised against. Perhaps this is why their geographical scope of the report is so muddled (to avoid any facts which destroy their argument?)
- Significant challenges in the identification of the causes of Islamophobia. First of all, there is not one form of Islam; it is not a single view, sect or a monolith. More importantly it is not the role of the state to define it. So if you are an Ahmadi or a Shia or a Sunni or what have you, we simply do not care! If you have religious differences, then by all means, discuss them, but do not kill for those differences. For example, the list of seven points raised by the Runnymede Trust defining Islamophobia can, unfortunately be equally applied to anti-Semitism, Anti-Hinduism, Anti-Shia… in OIC countries, where they will be totally applicable. Consequently, ALL root causes of Islamophobia as identified in section 1.4.1 are completely wrong and misallocated.
- A clear misunderstanding of the role of the media and the level of control people can actually exert over them. Most - if not all - of the OIC have no or very little press freedom. On top of that, the Arab League, a subset of the OIC, has decided to take fuller control over their TV Media since February 2008. That is not how the media works in other countries. Do check out independent organisations such as Reporters without Borders.
- Israel – Palestine conflict. This is something that I can never understand. Curiously, more than 3/4th of all dead Palestinians have been killed by their fellow Arabs compared to the numbers killed by Israelis, but besides that breathtaking hypocrisy, I still cannot understand why they would include it in here. Or exclude say something like Bangladesh and Sudan? Pretty bizarre and intellectually vacuous.
Islamophobia exists, hate crimes have seriously stated happening in many countries and that is something to be worried about. All parts of civil society have to take part in ensuring that this canker of Islamophobia does not emerge from the dark evil corners of our souls. This includes you and me, the media, NGOs, churches and mosques, the government and international organisations, etc. But this has to happen for the right reasons, not for the spectacularly wrong and intellectually vapid reasons as stated in this report. All this will end up doing (and has already done) is to provide ammunition to the right wing that the OIC, as the premier Islamic organisation, takes decisions based upon policy papers which a zoned out undergraduate would hesitate to submit. And by the way, try to understand the concept of free speech. People who are out there trying to control free speech are basically engaging in Neanderthal behaviour and should not be upset if their speech is ignored, unheard or even mis-understood.
All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!
Islamophobia - Organisation of Islamic Countries Report
Article
- » Published on March 30, 2008
- » Type: Review
- » Filed under: .
- » This is part of a regular feature, With a Grain of Salt.
Author: Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta
RSS:
- Subscribe to RSS 2.0 feeds for:
- » With a Grain of Salt
- » Comments on this article
- » Culture
- » Media: Journalism
- » Politics: War on Terror
- » Politics: Religion
- » Politics: Freedom
- » Politics: Censorship
- » Culture: Religion
- » Culture: History
- » Desicritics.org articles by Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta
- » All Review articles
- » All Desicritics.org articles
tarikur
March 30, 2008
04:05 PM
Thank you for the nice article.
Islamophobia need to be STOP and so radical Islamic terrorist.
I just feel like there are people who wants World War 3 for entertainment ans so end of days can come. This kind of thinking need to stop.
Nasser rohani
URL
March 30, 2008
05:06 PM
Very nice article. One major mistake is when he classifies the Baha'i Faith as an Islamic sect. Baha'i Faith is an independent world religion. Its' relation to Islam is same as Islam's relationship to Judaism or hinuism.
bd
URL
March 30, 2008
05:36 PM
Point taken, Nasser, I should have explained it better and I should know!!!
http://bahaisonline.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=308&Itemid=2
apologies again.
Morris
March 30, 2008
10:11 PM
Good article bd
I think Islam leaders need to reflect upon themselves to begin with. Who are the role models for muslim public? Bin ladin? Ayatola Khomani? Perhaps Arafat? I don't know. None inspiring muslim mass for peace with and respect for community at large. All we can do is to hope and pray that a leader from within will emerge and be able to make radical changes in Islam so that they feel truly etitled to respect they demand from the rest of the world. I am not very optimist.
bd
URL
March 31, 2008
01:03 AM
Thank you, Morris.
Here's a partial answer to your question:
http://piquancy.blogspot.com/2006/04/public-opinion-is-best-judge-of-whos.html
Ruvy in Jerusalem
March 31, 2008
07:24 AM
Fine article, bd,
There was a time and place for Jews to play the fiddle of victimization - particularly apt performance times were the late 1800's to 1925 in Russia, and from 1925 to 1956 in Europe and the Middle East generally.
Unfortunately, my co-religionists have turned victimization into a religion of its own, building expensive temples to worship at while they let our tribal identity slip away into western assimilation with its sick and decadent culture. For us, victimization is now a series of empty gestures akin to ancestor worship, itself a form of idolatry.
And now those who worship at these idolatrous temples lust after that which their eyes lead them to, and chase after what their heart seeks. They shall suffer the appropriate punishment at the Hand of G-d.
And now it appears that the Wahhabi and their ideological spoor, the "Moslem" Brotherhood, in all of its cancerous branches, have learned much from us and know well how to play the fiddle of victimization themselves.
If so many Wahhabi misguided Moslems weren't so busy making victims out of so many others, their complaints might have some grounding. As it stands, they are the hypocritical mewlings of malicious murderers whose song is "what is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine, also."
For those who dislike MY words, I quote the author, Dr. Dasgupta, for truth:
Ruvy in Jerusalem
March 31, 2008
07:47 AM
I ask all who read what I write to note - I do not condemn Islam or Moslems as an enemies of my people. I believe firmly that we will see, in the End of Days, a reconciliation between the Children of Kedar and Nevayot (the two oldest sons of Ishmael) and the Children of Israel, as predicted by the Prophet Isaiah at Isaiah 60:7-8.
But I do condemn the Wahhabi and their ideological spoor who have stolen Islam from its rightful owners and who turn it into a nightmare of war and death. Their sins are not just against non-Moslems but against Moslems as well.
Ruvy in Jerusalem
March 31, 2008
10:16 AM
I ask all who read what I write to note - I do not condemn Islam or Moslems as an enemies of my people. I believe firmly that we will see, in the End of Days, a reconciliation between the Children of Kedar and Nevayot (the two oldest sons of Ishmael) and the Children of Israel, as predicted by the Prophet Isaiah at Isaiah 60:7-8.
But I do condemn the Wahhabi and their ideological spoor who have stolen Islam from its rightful owners and who turn it into a nightmare of war and death. Their sins are not just against non-Moslems but against Moslems as well.
Man Singh
URL
March 31, 2008
10:53 AM
Morris # 5
Rol models for muslims should not be limited to poloiticians or terrorists only.
I propose Dr APJ Abdul Kalam as Role model of Global Muslim community ir Muslims Umma.
Morris
March 31, 2008
11:56 AM
Man Singh
You are right about APJ Kalam. But he has not inspired any muslims. He seems to have inspired more non-muslims than muslims. Having said that I admit I do not know very much about how well he is recognized by muslims as their role model or indeed a leader.
monte
March 31, 2008
01:39 PM
You write:
Israel - Palestine conflict. This is something that I can never understand. ...
You understand a lot. Why don't you understand the raging antisemitism in the OIC and the religious requirement to eliminate Israel? The Hamas charter is perfectly clear; so is the Fatah charter. Please comment.
Jim in Oregon
March 31, 2008
03:32 PM
Very interesting article BD......thank you for sharing.
There is no question that Islamophobia is increasing and my question is this: Where are the millions upon millions of peaceful Muslims who can stand up to defend the beauty and peaceful teachings of Prophet Muhammad and to present the religion of Islam to the world as one of peace, brotherhood, love......which I truly believe it to be??
There is so much Islamophobia because what is seen in the news is so destructive and negative. The media tends to focus on all the negativity, etc.
The peaceful and loving majority of the faith of Islam need to stand up and defend the beauty of the religion and to involve themselves in their community in service and interfaith efforts, etc to show that the religion of Islam is NOT what is presented in the news but rather a religion of beauty and inspired divine teachings.
If everyone only saw Christianity as the example of Jim Jones or Jimmy Baker or Jimmy Swaggart, etc.....then one would think that Christianity is nothing but a bunch of thieves and psychos but we know this is not the true spirit of Jesus' faith.
When Muslims can openly show the true love and peace for all that Prophet Muhammad called upon for His followers to demonstrate in their individual lives and demonstrate this in their communities then people will see what Islam is truly about.
When Muslims can stand up and show love for their Baha'i neighbor and defend that Baha'i neighbor's right to practice their faith even though they themselves don't follow the Baha'i religion then that will go a long way towards demonstrating the peaceful intentions of Muslims.
Peace,
Jim
temporal
URL
March 31, 2008
03:58 PM
beady:
nice one:)
being the judge and the jury...at this rate you will run out of salt;)
disagree.
the real issue to be tackled head on is discriminative and selective practices of hate crimes and hate literature and hate verdict on anyone
that will the fair, proper, balanced, indiscriminate (un-selective) approach that would work in the long run...otherwise these "selective" phobias will regroup and keep resurfacing
(and of course the added advantage - to keep the scribes in business;)
this is what i alluded to earlier in you taking all the mantles on your shoulder;)
good luck!
****
Wah wah - after that humble admission was there a need of proof?
;)
Hint: look at the ground reality TODAY. If you need help i can be of help.
TODAY is the operative world
Israel has turned Gaza and West bank into a ghetto. They are systematically and calculatedly stifling the Palestinians.
The survivors of Auschwitz are the Nazis for the Palestinians of today
THIS is the reality of TODAY...Palestinian children, women and men are being killed by today's Supremacists...need any salt?
;)
bd
URL
March 31, 2008
05:03 PM
Ruvy
further to your point about Jewish feelings about victimisation, the ironic thing is, the image of Israeli's in India is of people who shut up and simply go ahead and do things. If people bite them, they bite back. Simple folks who rose above their victimisation by the germans and arabs and are now worthy of emulation.
While I do realise that many think that the jews do complain and moan too much, it is not that bad.
What people do not realise is that certain memories become civilisational memories. For example, the original exile thousands of years ago, while originally political in nature, is now firmly part of Judaism, its rituals and theology. Similarly, the Shoah is well on its way to do so. ....
bd
URL
March 31, 2008
05:05 PM
#11, i did allude to that fact, see bullet #5
bd
URL
March 31, 2008
05:09 PM
#13, t, you raised many points. Let me deal with them one by one :)
Legal Discrimination is wrong. crimes are wrong, period. But not literature, sorry, that doesnt compute. Literature is literature, discrimination does not work that way. More importantly, who will be the judge of what's discrimiatory literature? I wouldnt trust the OIC or any Islamic body to be an independent judge at all. Which leaves a secular body. If literature is produced with a clear function to propagate hate and produces killings, then yes, there are sufficient laws, a legal system, a jury system and while that has challenges, its pretty good :)
bd
URL
March 31, 2008
05:15 PM
t, ok, my point was that they seem to think that one can include israel and palestine in that report but exclude, say Bangladesh. It does not work that way, my friend. Arabs HAVE killed more Palestinians than Israeli's. And those Palestinians, for example, killed by Brigadier Zia Ul Haq in Jordan are as equally (if nore more in number) dead as the ones killed by the Israeli's.
But that's neither here nor there, to selectively point to israel while ignoring the bangladesh, sudan, syria, yemen and and and is, well, rather interesting as a reason to point to it for islamaphobia :)
And see the jews, my friend, that's why their protestations of being victims does not wash that much. That's what the OIC report authors are doing as well. They are whining about being victims while victimising others. You know what that's called.... :)
bd
URL
March 31, 2008
05:35 PM
Ah! Abdul Kalam, one of my hero's. But I am not sure whether he will be considered as a global hero for obvious reasons...
temporal
URL
March 31, 2008
05:36 PM
beady:
if you read again, i did not comment on OIC at all...and if you like i will throw in bangladesh, kashmir, chechenya, darfur if it pleases you;)
(as well as pakistan where the sunnis are killing shias and shias sunnis and suicide bombers are killing sunnis and shias alike)
i began with the real issue
if you study hate crimes, literature is part of its domain (#16)
and zina ull haq or no zina, the israelis are today's Nazis and the Palestinian civilians are today's persecuted jews
and one more thing
silence on this palestinian suffering and deaths will make us an accomplice of those who were silent when the gas chambers were burning innocent jews
bd
URL
March 31, 2008
05:52 PM
t, i know you didnt comment on OIC, but I did, my friend. What's the point of stating that in the Islamophobia report? nowt!
I know, zia was a nazi, israeli's are nazi's, jordanian's are nazi's, that place is crawling with them.
and well, people are also silent on the comoros invasion as well as the burmese crackdown not to mention..... I think it equals out. See what i mean? when people forget their own victimisation of others, their own victimisation is doubted...
Morris
March 31, 2008
06:26 PM
temporal
I think you are getting carried away by comparing Israelis with nazis. I agree that Israel has been unfair and unjust to palestanians if for nothing else but for contnuing to build illegal settlements. This is out and outright stealing of palestanian land. Unfortunately, with the US backing they are getting away with it. It is a case of might is right. But does not compare with Nazis and Jews.
Egyptian leader Sadat was very smart. Had it not for him Israel would have grabbed part of Sinai as well. Palestanians are not acting smartly. Longer they carry on this conflict, lesser they are likely to get. I think they had a reasonable deal, the last one which Arafat subsequantly rejected.
temporal
URL
March 31, 2008
07:56 PM
beady:
I think it equals out - perhaps you should revisit this? (because obviously i disagree and on reflection perhaps you would too)
the framework i established in my response is TODAY...and you make a fine poodle of mixing today with all the yesterdays...to an extent that is academic (and necessary)...but one must also draw a lesson and MOVE on...not mix up arguments
am focussing on vitimisation of civilians TODAY by yesterday's victims...the epitome of irony (and injustice)
ps: how wonderful of you to appreciate the game OIC picked up from AIPAC;)
how many articles have you done on the charitable work done by AIPAC?
bd
URL
April 1, 2008
01:35 AM
t
there is no statute of limitations on genocide, my friend, you do not walk away from genocide that easily. So by saying that forget about the masses of palestinians killed by fellow arabs (so much so that the palestinians themselves do not want any help from their "friends") and just look at jews, is a bit strange.
And talking about drawing lessons, I dont think the other Arabs have learnt their lessons from killing palestinians, they are busy doing the same to others, dont you think?
So going back to your framework, good for you, buddy, have fun with it but its not very useful for discussing Islamophobia is it?
cheers
bd
temporal
URL
April 1, 2008
02:28 AM
beady:
the difference is being academic and .......:)
statute of limitations can be applied only under agreed upon laws....so the first step is to agree to a set of laws when applying to past injustices and genocides....good luck with agreements and consensus there...keep us informed;)
why be so selective? oh i forget it is islamophobia you are discussing?
so we leave the treatment meted out to american indians (red indians), inuits, aborigines out of the picture and keep returning to arabs and palestinians ...and shed crocodile tears ...(but not about israelis and palestinians that is CURRENT and REAL because that does not fit your phobia?
so you do not approve of OIC (I for Islamic) discussing Islamic issues? i will write to them perhaps at the next summit they should discuss how the west loves them;)
bd
April 1, 2008
03:06 AM
t,
I am afraid statute of limitations is legal not academic.
As for rest of your comments, thank you for those.
bd
April 1, 2008
03:06 AM
t,
Thank you for your comments, much appreciated.
Anamika
April 1, 2008
03:28 AM
BD - I found the article very interesting and thought provoking until I got to the end (and your apparently favourite bugbear).
You seem to ignore one basic fact: Palestine is an "emotional" issue for many Muslims and Arabs because it stands as a continuing symbol of disenfranchisement, colonialisation and apparent disempowerment of Islam/Muslims/Arabs . And really, to ignore the power of symbols is to take an absurdly literalist stand which is self-defeating.
Two: A quick look at policies reveals that OIC states plays politics by cutting deals with Israel on one end and trying to appease their populations with platitudes re: palestine on the other - so the inclusion of Palestine in the report is simply a nod to the symbolism (and a convenient way of distracting their populations). Its not too different from the various anti-Semitism reports (by AIPAC, various other Jewish lobbby groups in Europe and Israel) that ensure that a mention is made of the Holocaust on EVERY discussion regarding Israel or the Jews.
Three: I am not sure where you pull out the figure that more Palestinians have been killed by Arabs especially as it falls into the very generalization that you critique (when? how? WHICH Arabs - other states, Lebanese Christian militias, internecine fighting?) But I am willing to go along with your statistic for the moment (but could I get a non-Israeli source for this please - just for reference?)
However, I am a bit concerned by the glib assumptions you express based on that statistic. And since you are looking at the PAST, let me try finding another example: MORE Indians were killed during the British colonial era at the hands of INDIANS than at "white" hands. It was Indian soldiers who fired at Jallianwala, Indians who defeated the various kingdoms pre and during 1857. And technically it was Indian soldiers who suppressed freedom struggles and helped colonize wide swathes of the world for the British (Burma, China's opium wars, various ME rebellions, Afghan wars etc)
Does that mean we should have never fought against colonialism? More importantly, just because it was Indian hands that wielded the guns (which were powered by the political/economic might of the colonizer) absolve the British of their DOMINANT responsibility? Does this mean Indians are to blame for the colonial excesses committed at British behest?
Methinks your personal ideology on Israel (and a lot of conservative Indians seem to have elided their own unease about Muslims to a loyalty to Israel) is fettering your argument to a simplistic, literalist and unsustainable one.
bd
April 1, 2008
03:43 AM
Anamika
Thank you for the comments. Here's the issue. The authors of the report are pushing that report on to say the western and non-Muslim world saying that one of the reasons for Islamophobia is the Israeli Palestinian issue. Ok, so far so good.
I understand why it is emotive for them and I realise the implications of colonialism, but to point to that factor while ignoring others is why this factor is impossible to corroborate to the audience.
So for example, why no mention about the delay in giving the Kurdish people their inalienable right to their own homeland....
While getting good non Israeli references on the number of people killed is tough (how many arab historians do you know who have investigated using official archives on Arab killings of Arabs, as a pointer, look at the armenian genocide scholarship levels...?), I wil put together a note and post it!
Presumably this paper was the basis for some positions for negotiations and debate by the OIC. If that was the case, then the objections that I have raised are going to be raised as well.
And thanks for yur comments on my personal ideology.
Ruvy in Jerusalem
April 1, 2008
03:52 AM
And see the Jews, my friend, that's why their protestations of being victims does not wash that much.
Please don't include me in that bunch, bd; remember what I wrote in comment #6:
Unfortunately, my co-religionists have turned victimization into a religion of its own, building expensive temples to worship at while they let our tribal identity slip away into western assimilation with its sick and decadent culture. For us, victimization is now a series of empty gestures akin to ancestor worship, itself a form of idolatry.
In reality, you are referring to the secular Jewish establishment in Israel, and the whining liberal Jewish establishment in exile. THEY are the voice of the past. You are not referring to the future of the Jewish people - the Jews who live in this country.
TODAY.
The theological meaning of the Nazi and European murder of my people is still being worked out TODAY. And more and more Jews HERE, TODAY, are coming to the painful conclusion that Rav Meir Kahane, z"l hy"d, was right in his warnings, as well as his assessment of the real meaning of the Holocaust for us Jews.
As for our friend from western Ontario and his allegations of Jews being today's Nazis, I leave you with this image to consider.
Anamika
April 1, 2008
04:24 AM
BD: "So for example, why no mention about the delay in giving the Kurdish people their inalienable right to their own homeland...."
I guess you are doing that "argumentative Indian" thing because the above statement is so glaringly obvious. Why are the "inalienable" rights of the Tamil Eelam, Bodoland, Nagas, Ladakhis, Kashmiris, Sikh Punjabi, Garhwalis, etc NOT in the same category as western/foreign colonialism?
As far as the ME is concerned, Kurds are an internal issue - albeit one that dates back to colonial division of territories. Its not that different from the various divisions within Afghanistan. Lets turn it around - its the same reason as the "inalienable" rights of the Basques being a concern for France and Spain (and thus EU) and not India or Brazil.
Re: Armenian genocide - why would Arabs keep records of Turkish actions? Re: Arab statistics on Palestine - see PASSIA.
There are other sources on the region - including those by independent observers (both Israeli and foreign). Its just hard to believe Israeli data on Palestine because so much of it is skewed to fit their political agenda.
bd
April 1, 2008
06:30 AM
Anamika
not me, I am looking at the OIC report. If they are claiming Islamophobia arises because of self determination being squished, then well, the OIC countries themselves are doing a very good job of squishing it as well.
So yes, this argumentative indian is saying that that factor is not applicable if we are coming up with causes of Islamophobia. You cannot claim that fight for self determination is fine when its done by Muslims against Jews but not ok when its muslims against muslims and THEN claim that that factor is a cause for Islamophobia.
Anamika, if you remove that review framework, then it is a different argument.
As for unbiased sources in the israeli palestinian conflict......, that's another argument altogether, but give me some time, I will get to a proper post with references, I was counting from the revolt in the mid 1800's against the egyptians (which arguably could be said to be the rise in a palestine nation so to say..) and down to today, and yes, anybody speaking arabic would be culturally arabic. But to further complicate matters in coming up with casualty counts, for example, the brigade lead by brigadier zia ul haq's killings during black september have a huge whack on the casualty counts but that's not arab on palestinian killing. Then you have the internal tribal riot over 70-100 years, killings of palestinians who were in the various other country regiments (such as syrian regiments) who fought with the jordanians, lebanon you know.....
Compared that to the casualty figures in the wars and the post war periods and then the 2 intifada's. But lets see when i add them all up and put in ranges with probability figures....
Anamika
April 1, 2008
07:29 AM
BD - I dont have any problems with the review of the OIC report and the first part of the piece. I agree with all of that. What I DONT agree with is this lumping together of "Arabs" or "Muslims" - whether it is politically expedient for various sides or not, there is no such singular identity as an "Arab" - not since the demise of a very brief historical moment of leftist/secular/pan-arabism that was more a product of a Fanonian postcolonial elite than a real grass-roots products.
I find that idea of "Arabs killed more Palestinians" than "Jews have killed" really problematic because of the implicit defense of Israel that is holds. Its a bit like using the number of partition deaths to defend British colonial record.
The fact remains that Palestinians have been steadily displaced from their traditional lands (which YES were under Ottoman rule) by the naqba. So your example of the anti-Egyptian uprising is quite irrelevant. As an illustration: Yes, Xhosas were killed by the Zulus in South Africa in internecine warfare - yet that hardly justifies the apartheid, displacement, "homelands" imposed on the black South Africans by colonial and then apartheid regimes.
In making that spurious link, you are purposefully ignoring the power imbalance that the Zionist machinery brought to bear in establishing the final European settler colony, and that it continues to employ even today against the Palestinians - and no, this neither excuses the Arabs of their behaviour, or tries to justify the way the Arabs use Palestinians as the kameez-ul-Usman. But lets not pretend that Israel is not the prime culprit in what has happened to the Palestinians since the 1940s.
bd
April 1, 2008
07:59 AM
Anamika
I am not the person making the connection, it was made for me. I am merely pointing out the inconsistencies in that formulation.
The israeli-palestinian issue is much more complicated than suddenly becoming a primary cause of islamophobia. So while Israel is the prime culprit since the 1940's, that is not the reason for Islamophobia and for OIC to bring in this factor is frankly silly.
bd
April 1, 2008
08:02 AM
and before I forget, Anamika, the time period in question actually goes back to the emergence of Islam. So effectively, if I had to align my causalty figures with the time period mentioned in the OIC report, Israel would be a tiny blip on the graph!
which is another indication of the vacuity of this report.
bd
April 1, 2008
10:26 AM
Ruvy
Apologies, i missed your comment.
My comment about Israel and victimisation was the generalised comment, not aimed at you personally, but your comments add to it.
Personally speaking, i have said before that countries based upon religion have seeds of their own change (perhaps even destruction) sown inside themselves. That is mainly because they are unable to handle (1) minorities; (2) different interpretations; (3) global rules and regulations ranging from the ICC to the WTO to arbitration bodies, etc.
States have to work on written legal systems, constitutions and that sits very uneasily with faith.
Ruvy in Jerusalem
April 1, 2008
11:37 AM
bd,
I just finished watching Fitna on the internet, or at least what remained after it was censored by "LiveLeak".
The producer of the film accurately portrays the Wahhabi point of view, the point of view poisoning many Moslems in Europe and North America. The emphases on the Qur'anic verses quoted all are on the violence to be expended on non-believers, including Hindus. The propaganda of Arab rebels against Israel is also shown - a three year old is shown describing Jews as being apes and pigs because the Qur'an says so. Signs of demonstrators are shown that warn Jews of the "real holocaust". There is also a live beheading in this movie, a video released by terrorists.
No wonder so many Moslems are upset! The Wahhabi are upset because it shows them for the barbaric filth they are; true Moslems are offended that the filth of the Wahhabi ideology of death is being sprayed on them.
One problem is that the threats of death from the Wahhabi tend to silence most true Moslems, as well as scare most other folks - like the ones at YouTube.
If anything, a movie like this will provoke Islamophobia. But Moslem terrorists are going to provoke a holocaust of terrible proportions in Europe, and Moslems will be the victims. The Europeans may pretend that they are civilized, but they are still the savages who burned witches, killed Jews and Roma, and they will probably kill many millions of Moslems in Europe when finally provoked.
The Tana"kh predicts reconciliation between the Children of Israel and the Children of Ishmael - but I'm afraid much blood will be shed before this happens.
This is truly saddening.
Aaman
URL
April 1, 2008
11:40 AM
Ruvy/BD, would appreciate reviews of Fitna. I've got it on torrent d/l myself.
Chandra
April 1, 2008
12:01 PM
As far as i can see, muslims according to the whole world would include the 250 M off muslims living in NAfrica and Middle East. The Paks have come into the picture during the last few years on account of Afghanistan.Otherwise muslims are divided into two parts- Upper class and lower class. Indian muslims are largely regarded as lower class. No wonder their Arab masters treat them (and the Paks and Bangladeshis) like shit when they work in the middle East. No wonder the OIC is so fanatical that they exclude 150 M muslims from being a part of the OIC because they committed the crime of living with 900 M hindoos.
As far as I know, there are many kinds of islamic phobias
- The Europeans and Americans are fearful of Middle Easterners
- The Britts are fearful of the Paks
- Indians have a hatred for muslims in their own country
Each of these has different root causes. Middle Easterners have a whole host of grouses - Israel and America being key ones
Paks (or some of them) feel left out (or whatever mental issues they have) in Britain
In India, both muslim and hindu leadership have used this diviseness to consolidate their votes.
Considering the current scenario, the only I hope i have is for Indian muslims. Many of them are hard working, willing to be educated. Many of them are beinnning to understand manipulation. Thankfully for them many hindus are also begiinning to realise this kind of politics and therefore not always rewarding such people.
Ruvy in Jerusalem
April 1, 2008
12:29 PM
Aaman,
I'll give this a shot. But, it would be more interesting if a Moslem reviewed this movie. The rest of us - all of us - are intended victims of Wahhabi terrorism.
Anamika
April 1, 2008
01:16 PM
BD: see your point re how the OIC is making that link...i also see how a less than articulate reasoning would link palestine to islamophobia..but now that you have clarified the points, cool. :-)
Aaman: Fitna isn't really causing half as much of a "ruckus" as Wilders thought it would - other than in radical Islamist and far-right European circles (funny how they mirror themselves).
FYI Der Spiegel carried a review by Fatma Aykut titled, "I'm not the least bit offended." (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,544454,00.html)
I watched it and found it rather pathetic - and ironically a near replica of someo of the jihadi propaganda videos found on youtube (my favourite is a Brit-Pakistani one warning against the dangers of Bollywood!)
A far better idea is the Pakistani one - Khuda ke Liye (In the Name of God). Not the slickest film - by hollywood/bollywood standards, but far more unflinching in its honesty re: both western islamophobia and jihadis.
My favourite scene is at the end - with the young man who has reverted back to his usual urban gear after being disillusioned by jihad raising his voice in namaz in the very mosque (and in front of the same maulvi)that had seen his radicalisation. Really recommend it...
Ruvy in Jerusalem
April 1, 2008
02:34 PM
Considering Anamika's comments, the ruckus is the fear of death by Dutch politicians, the fear of death by You Tube types, and finally the anger of the Wahhabi terrorists who are shown for the trash they are.
But the impact will be on western audiences for whom this movie is really made. Hindus who have lived with Moslems will not be impressed, but westerners and some Jews will.
I wasn't that impressed. I know who my enemies are, and whom I'll have to kill, should it come to that. And I have a pretty good idea of where the danger will come from in terms of betrayal as well.
bd
URL
April 1, 2008
02:41 PM
Fitna is not worth the electrons it is exciting, Aaman. One can delve into the sura's and verses, and debate on the translations vis a vis various tafsirs or even relating to other fiqh schools, but that's horrendously boring!
now, if somebody did want to poke holes from the european far right, then they would pick up old tammiya...., but this video is boring!, lol
bd
URL
April 1, 2008
02:47 PM
Ruvy #36, yes. i agree with you, Never forget the propensity of Europeans (and to a lesser extent, Americans...) for extreme violence. It is hardly few decades that WW2 ended and looking at the steadily rising graph, I am very worried. And if the EU elites think that a poxy reform treaty and some other bits will paper over the nationalistic cracks, they have another think coming.
In the economist today, there was a fascinating comment, the reason why we didnt have that many wars in Europe is because most of the states are now almost completely ethnically aligned. But increased immigration is blurring those boundaries, population getting older, economic growth slow, elite out of touch..., fun times
bd
URL
April 1, 2008
02:48 PM
Chandra, good identifiers of more reasons and more granularity of the possible reasons. Even more reason for the author's of that report to reconsider...
temporal
URL
April 1, 2008
03:41 PM
beady:
your words!
Here's the issue. The authors of the report are pushing that report on to say the western and non-Muslim world saying that one of the reasons for Islamophobia is the Israeli Palestinian issue. Ok, so far so good.
I understand why it is emotive for them and I realise the implications of colonialism, but to point to that factor while ignoring others is why this factor is impossible to corroborate to the audience.
So for example, why no mention about the delay in giving the Kurdish people their inalienable right to their own homeland....
kurds are muslims and by your own admission you were dealing with "Islam phobias"
:)
temporal
URL
April 1, 2008
04:12 PM
ana:
this is the crux when getting those numbers
However, I am a bit concerned by the glib assumptions you express based on that statistic. And since you are looking at the PAST, let me try finding another example: MORE Indians were killed during the British colonial era at the hands of INDIANS than at "white" hands. It was Indian soldiers who fired at Jallianwala, Indians who defeated the various kingdoms pre and during 1857. And technically it was Indian soldiers who suppressed freedom struggles and helped colonize wide swathes of the world for the British (Burma, China's opium wars, various ME rebellions, Afghan wars etc)
Does that mean we should have never fought against colonialism? More importantly, just because it was Indian hands that wielded the guns (which were powered by the political/economic might of the colonizer) absolve the British of their DOMINANT responsibility? Does this mean Indians are to blame for the colonial excesses committed at British behest?
Methinks your personal ideology on Israel (and a lot of conservative Indians seem to have elided their own unease about Muslims to a loyalty to Israel) is fettering your argument to a simplistic, literalist and unsustainable one.
and the other numbers you alluded to ... millions killed in partition
***
whatever those numbers beady comes up from non-jewish sources will reveal...there cannot be a justification for the holocaust thrust against the occupied palestinians
it cuts no dice, killing civilians (palestininans or israelis - by individuals or by states)
it cuts no dice when former victims victimise others
rumana husain
URL
April 2, 2008
08:36 AM
PHEW!!!
Ruvy in Jerusalem
April 2, 2008
10:39 AM
New York Times Article: In Gaza, Hamas's Insults to Jews Complicate Peaceby STEVEN ERLANGER.
Egypt barely allows Gazan Arabs to visit Egypt today - and Egypt created the open air prison that Gaza is. Not long ago, Egyptians from el-Arish visiting Gaza couldn't believe how prosperous it was compared to el-Arish. And Gazans visiting el-Arish couldn't believe how bad things were for Egyptians.
Something to keep in mind when reading the mewlings of the people who call us Nazis and get apoplectic if anyone defends a Jew or Israel.
Beyond that, not comment is necessary.
temporal
URL
April 2, 2008
11:17 AM
more from the usual suspects:
Instead of gas chambers, slow death by stifling.
The jew the new Nazi: the palestinians the new jews. holocaust by any name
Morris
April 2, 2008
12:54 PM
"The jew the new Nazi: the palestinians the new jews. holocaust by any name."
Repeatiing this mantra does not make it believable. Admitteddly Israel has been unjust. But then palestinians are not acting in admirable way either. For one thing nazis never talked about negotiating with jews and periodicaly shook hands with them. I think that is a big glaring difference among many more.
I agree that at times Israel appears not very sincere because they talk about negotiations on one hand and continues building illegal settlements on the other hand. This may have something to do with their internal politics. I do not know why they have to be so blatantly insincere. But comparing with holocaust is stretching a lot, is'nt it?
Ruvy in Jerusalem
April 2, 2008
01:32 PM
bd,
There you have it:
I find that idea of "Arabs killed more Palestinians" than "Jews have killed" really problematic because of the implicit defense of Israel that is holds.
The snake of truth at last slithers out from behind the multisyllabic blather of academic phrasing.
It would be far more honest for Anamika to come out and say what she means - "Jews don't deserve a homeland!"
Let's distill her argument to its simple essence. Arabs, every variety of them, deserve a homeland, Indians deserve a homeland, Englishmen deserve a homeland, but Jews do not deserve a homeland. Neither do Basques or Kurds. When homelands were being handed out, they weren't on the line. Too bad.
But more important, any defense of Israel is indefensible.
That's the bottom line. All the rest that she says is garbage. The implication, of course, is that we Jews should be assimilated away or annihilated - but not by good Indians, lest their karma be messed up!
And I've heard these views before. I comprehend fully.
At least Temporal does not temporize. Any defense of the Jew is indefensible and
The Jew [is] the new Nazi: the Palestinians the new Jews. holocaust by any name
I'll not waste time on the standard Zionist response. You've heard it all.
The Zionist simply wants to be one of the nations, a people like all the others - and it is clear that the world - represented here by people like Anamika and Temporal and their running dogs - will not let him.
So, fuck that bullshit. It's not Judaism anyway; it is just the whining of just another scared kike pleading for special treatment - equality. The only Jew who pleads is scared shitless and cursed with a ghetto mentality.
Any Jew who pleads in the face of obvious Jew-hatred deserves all the contempt the non-Jew heaps on him.
The Rav Kahane, may his memory be for a blessing and may G-d avenge his blood, taught me never to plead, or beg or even attempt to reason over what is the Holy Writ. That is the equivalent of cursing G-d. I have since come to understand differently from the way I used to.
But I will gladly explain:
So far as I'm concerned, G-d gave me and all the other Children of Israel all of the Land of Israel with borders defined in the Torah and in the end, those will be the borders of my country. Full stop. Further, that it is not for me to stand and plead for support or justice before the likes of any non-Jew. We stand a nation alone, separate from all of mankind. That is the root meaning of kadósh "set aside".
And we as a Nation or as a People, are not subject to your judgment or approval. Judgment is in the Hand of G-d, not man.
Those are my views, and you are entitled to think of them what you wish; I'm not stating them to convince you, but to make clear to you why I need not even try.
But for once, just for once, I'd like Anamika to openly admit that any defense of Israel is indefensible. It would at least have the ring of honesty and truth rather than the banjo note of hypocrisy and lies....
That, stating plain unadorned truth, for her, would be a step in the right direction - a step forward.
temporal
URL
April 2, 2008
02:25 PM
And we as a Nation or as a People, are not subject to your judgment or approval. Judgment is in the Hand of G-d, not man.
whose god?
mine did not approve of this
he wants BOTH to live as equals - with diginity and legal protection
***
ana:
So, fuck that bullshit
is there a GODWIN equivalent for resorting to frothing?
temporal
URL
April 2, 2008
02:30 PM
morris:
may be/may be not
but it is also very necessary to counter paid israeli goebbels
;)
temporal
URL
April 2, 2008
02:30 PM
morris:
may be/may be not
but it is also very necessary to counter paid israeli goebbels
;)
Morris
April 2, 2008
02:53 PM
"So far as I'm concerned, G-d gave me and all the other Children of Israel all of the Land of Israel with borders defined in the Torah and in the end, those will be the borders of my country. Full stop."
Woh Woh Woh God never gave any body any thing. No wonder we are having trouble. Where did this come from. Some people say God told us to take care of all non believers. If we go along with yours, how about that one. God said nothing for crying out loud to any body. This is all man made. Let us accept that for the sake of peace and harmony.
And let us be a little realistic and talk about issues rather than holocaust and genocide.
Ruvy in Jerusalem
April 2, 2008
03:15 PM
"The Jew the new Nazi: the Palestinians the new Jews. holocaust by any name."
Repeating this mantra does not make it believable.
Morris,
Repeating this mantra is precisely what makes it believable. Our Canadian Göbbels learned very well from the Nazis.
But a picture is worth a thousand words, and the picture that has our Canadian Göbbels steaming and repeating mantras is this one. But the link here is the history of Amin al-Husseini, the mentor of Yassir Arafat. But the telling photo, the one that ties it all together is the photo of Amin al-Husseini .... President of World Islamic Congress (IOC) in the last years of his life.
commonsense
April 2, 2008
03:24 PM
ruvy:
"The Rav Kahane, may his memory be for a blessing and may G-d avenge his blood, taught me never to plead, or beg or even attempt to reason over what is the Holy Writ."
no comment needed
commonsense
April 2, 2008
03:28 PM
Temp:
""So, fuck that bullshit"" (Ruvy)
is there a GODWIN equivalent for resorting to frothing?"
would be fuckers of bullshit would be well-advised to use protection; preferably double-bagging. bullshit and horseshit are prime breeding grounds for tetanus...
Anamika
April 2, 2008
03:34 PM
Temp bhai - kya kaha tha maine:
yeh chahe kitna halla kar le, vapas zaroor aayega,
Godwin mile na mile, bechare khuda miyan ko zaroor ghaseet ke saath layega. ;-)
Ruvy: God gave land to the Jews? Is that the same god that then sent a son down to die on the cross at "the hands of jews" and thus sanction and justify the killing of the jews by the believers of the cross? And is that the same god gave the divine right to Muslims to kill the unbelievers, including the jews?
Each time you write here, you expose yourself as a religious fanatic and no different from Mullah Omar and company...
Btw as re: your statement. I don't hide my moral or ideological stance by trying to peddle fanaticism as "negotiation" or "dialogue" as Israel does. So let me state it as UNEQUIVOCALLY as possible: NOBODY DESERVES A HOMELAND BASED ON INJUSTICE AND SUFFERING OF ANOTHER. That includes EVERY single criteria including religion, race, language etc. And yes, that view is informed by MY faith as a Hindu which believes in karma and in this case karma would mean that such an enterprise - based on misery of others - will eventually meet a similarly miserable end.
Your little rant on how god gave you the land reminds me of the Afrikaaners in apartheid South Africa who used to claim that "god had given the land to white people." They even celebrated that idea with a national holiday - Day of the Covenant - which incidentally got abolished when "god" proved that he didn't agree at all. But "god" is now busy getting old South Africans to teach Israel the ways of imposing apartheid on the "natives" over there. There was a very long report in the Guardian last year on Israel-RSA apartheid policy connections..google it, I am sure you'll find it.
commonsense
April 2, 2008
03:37 PM
Ruvy:
""And we as a Nation or as a People, are not subject to your judgment or approval. Judgment is in the Hand of G-d, not man.""
as for me judging others, ah that's a different story! as in...
""So, fuck that bullshit."" (non-judgementally of course)
""It's not Judaism anyway"" (i will decide what it is, with the help of kahane)
""it is just the whining of just another scared kike pleading for special treatment - equality."" (as the chosen people we hate equality, in a non-judgemental way of course.)
""The only Jew who pleads is scared shitless and cursed with a ghetto mentality."" (need more evidence of my commitment to non-judgementalism?)
""Any Jew who pleads in the face of obvious Jew-hatred deserves all the contempt the non-Jew heaps on him."" (non-judgemental contempt of course!)
Hows the hunt for them "pathan jews"? any takers so far??
commonsense
April 2, 2008
03:43 PM
Anamika:
""kya kaha tha maine:
yeh chahe kitna halla kar le, vapas zaroor aayega""
with my photographic memory, i remember your prediction too well. issey literal moo lagganey sey koi kaam nahin baneyga. (no need to engage with him in a rational manner, since he has explicity renounced reason) hence mockery and ridicule, that expose him, in a non-judgemental way of course, is probably the way to go. Considering that God is watching over him directly and has promised him all sorts of goodies, no clue as to why he even bothers to express his so-called views....well, we do need some "so-called" entertainment from time to time.
Ruvy in Jerusalem
April 2, 2008
04:25 PM
Woh Woh Woh God never gave any body any thing.
Really, Morris?
This chapter of the Tana"kh says different. Let's set it out for you to read.
Bereshit - Genesis
Chapter 17
1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, HaShem appeared to Abram, and said unto him: 'I am G-d Almighty; walk before Me, and be thou wholehearted.
2 And I will make My covenant between Me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.'
3 And Abram fell on his face; and G-d talked with him, saying:
4 'As for Me, behold, My covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be the father of a multitude of nations.
5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee.
6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a G-d unto thee and to thy seed after thee.
8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their G-d.'
9 And G-d said unto Abraham: 'And as for thee, thou shalt keep My covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations.
10 This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised.
11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, that is not of thy seed.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.'
15 And G-d said unto Abraham: 'As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.
16 And I will bless her, and moreover I will give thee a son of her; yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall be of her.'
17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart: 'Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?'
18 And Abraham said unto G-d: 'Oh that Ishmael might live before Thee!'
19 And G-d said: ''Nay, but Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son; and thou shalt call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him.
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee; behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
21 But My covenant will I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.'
22 And He left off talking with him, and G-d went up from Abraham.
23 And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as G-d had said unto him.
24 And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
25 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
26 In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son.
27 And all the men of his house, those born in the house, and those bought with money of a foreigner, were circumcised with him.
But this chapter doesn't say it all, so let's be a bit more specific. The first eight verses of this chapter of the Tana"kh specifies this land, once known as Canaan to be the inheritance of Abraham. Let's set it out for you to read.
Bereshit - Genesis
Chapter 12
1 Now HaShem said unto Abram: 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee.
2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing.
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.'
4 So Abram went, as HaShem had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him; and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.
6 And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Shechem, unto the terebinth of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land.
7 And HaShem appeared unto Abram, and said: 'Unto thy seed will I give this land'; and he builded there an altar unto HaShem, who appeared unto him.
8 And he removed from thence unto the mountain on the east of Beth-el, and pitched his tent, having Beth-el on the west, and Ai on the east; and he builded there an altar unto HaShem, and called upon the name of HaShem.
This is our claim to this country, not the Balfour Declaration, nor the UN Partition, not any man-made treaty or foolishness. Without this claim, there is NO reason for a Jew to want to come home. Without this claim, there is merely a lawyer pushing a camel through a sewing needle. All this other "paperwork" has been to enable the fulfillment of a prophecy that our people would be gathered home from the four corners of the earth to return home in triumph to our homeland - to fulfill the Charge that G-d gave us.
We have not yet returned in triumph, and we are certainly not fulfilling our Divinely given Charge. As you correctly point out, the weak regime of traitors in Jerusalem is blatantly insincere. And it is not merely insincere to the Arabs, it is insincere to the Jews they are supposed to protect.
And let us be absolutely clear here. This is not merely said in the Tana"kh, the Hebrew Bible, it is also stated in the Qur'an, that this land was given to the Children of Israel.
So, it is theoretically possible for men of good faith, rabbis and imams or qadis, to come to an agreement over this country based on the 1919 agreement between Feisal of Makka and Medina and Haim Weitzmann. Indeed, I had been working on just such a project when I started writing for Blogcritics (the parent site of Desicritics) in late 2005. But the second Lebanon War and other events in early 2006 dashed chances for such meetings to occur for reasons I'm not at liberty to go into here.
It is not my desire to see a war. It is my preference to see a solution where the Kingdom of Jordan becomes the center of "Palestinian" Arab identity, with Arabs living in this country, all of them, receiving Jordanian citizenship, that they may participate in the national life of a nation and not be stateless or in danger of being stateless.
Those living in Israel would be expected to obey Israeli law and pay Israeli taxes, with a portion of those taxes remitted to the Kingdom of Jordan. Those willing to live in peace in Israel could keep their land; those who desire to reside elsewhere would have the opportunity to do so, but would not be forced off the lands they till.
They would choose their own leaders and live in their own towns and villages in peace, under Israeli sovereignty. In addition, Israel would undertake to extend its kupat Holim system, system of medical care, to Jordan, so that all the residents of Israel and Jordan could have quality medical care.
If the Arabs here were not rebelling against Israeli authority, there would be no reason for checkpoints, for military patrols, for walls ruining the land, and all the other aspects of despotism that Israel has been forced to adopt in Judea and Samaria. Resident Arabs should and would be treated with the respect they are due as free individuals, ex-pats with rights to live here. Finally, and most importantly, Israel would undertake to see to it that all Arabs were paid equally as Israelis. From my point of view, this is the most heinous crime of the present regime with respect to Arabs, as it not only cheats Arabs, it jades Israelis and makes them contemptuous of honest labor.
This would be peace, not war!! But I do not foresee this happening.
What I foresee happening is war, terrible war, with many thousands of dead in this country, both Arab and Jew. I foresee massacres of Arabs in response to an Arab missile bombardment that will leave flaming cities and factories on our coast, and which will cause Jews to rise and kill as many Arabs as they can in vengeance.
I foresee a foreign army of occupation attempting to take over, and I foresee terrible events as a result of this. The foreign fleets are already sitting off the coast, foreign agents infest Gaza like cockroaches, and there are at least five American military bases here. The day will come when those bases will be used to overthrown the Israeli regime.
Each day appears to bring this closer and closer.
Ruvy in Jerusalem
April 2, 2008
04:49 PM
I see we're getting the Hindi "comments" now.
Ma la'asót?
I have a longish comment that rather answers one of Morris' questions but the system does not seem to want to let it out.
YAAWWWNNNNN.....
Nothing else to say to the rest of you, unless bd wishes to pipe up....
Anamika
April 2, 2008
04:55 PM
CS: agreed. I guess reason took a long break when "pathan jews" made an appearance. :-)
lekin i responded not only to the fanatic but also to counter the propaganda which Israeli government has been feeding India re: situation there. They build on the unease re: Islam amongst some Hindus, draw similarities between Kashmir and Jerusalem, add Pakistan to the mix and then - with a sleight of hand only rivalled by OIC's Islamophobia report - link it to their "national" enterprise vis a vis Palestine. And far too many of us (including some of our leaders) swallow that unhesitatingly. And that needs to be countered with information and not only humour - although a combination of both is probably best. :-)
Ruvy in Jerusalem
April 2, 2008
05:06 PM
Woh Woh Woh God never gave any body any thing.
Really, Morris?
This chapter of the Tana"kh says different. Let's set it out for you to read.
Bereshit - Genesis
Chapter 17
1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, HaShem appeared to Abram, and said unto him: 'I am G-d Almighty; walk before Me, and be thou wholehearted.
2 And I will make My covenant between Me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.'
3 And Abram fell on his face; and G-d talked with him, saying:
4 'As for Me, behold, My covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be the father of a multitude of nations.
5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee.
6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a G-d unto thee and to thy seed after thee.
8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their G-d.'
9 And G-d said unto Abraham: 'And as for thee, thou shalt keep My covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations.
10 This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised.
11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, that is not of thy seed.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.'
15 And G-d said unto Abraham: 'As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.
16 And I will bless her, and moreover I will give thee a son of her; yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall be of her.'
17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart: 'Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?'
18 And Abraham said unto G-d: 'Oh that Ishmael might live before Thee!'
19 And G-d said: ''Nay, but Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son; and thou shalt call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him.
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee; behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
21 But My covenant will I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.'
22 And He left off talking with him, and G-d went up from Abraham.
23 And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as G-d had said unto him.
24 And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
25 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
26 In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son.
27 And all the men of his house, those born in the house, and those bought with money of a foreigner, were circumcised with him.
But this chapter doesn't say it all, so let's be a bit more specific. The first eight verses of this chapter of the Tana"kh specifies this land, once known as Canaan to be the inheritance of Abraham. Let's set it out for you to read.
Bereshit - Genesis
Chapter 12
1 Now HaShem said unto Abram: 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee.
2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing.
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.'
4 So Abram went, as HaShem had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him; and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.
6 And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Shechem, unto the terebinth of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land.
7 And HaShem appeared unto Abram, and said: 'Unto thy seed will I give this land'; and he builded there an altar unto HaShem, who appeared unto him.
8 And he removed from thence unto the mountain on the east of Beth-el, and pitched his tent, having Beth-el on the west, and Ai on the east; and he builded there an altar unto HaShem, and called upon the name of HaShem.
This is our claim to this country, not the Balfour Declaration, nor the UN Partition, not any man-made treaty or foolishness. Without this claim, there is NO reason for a Jew to want to come home. Without this claim, there is merely a lawyer pushing a camel through a sewing needle. All this other "paperwork" has been to enable the fulfillment of a prophecy that our people would be gathered home from the four corners of the earth to return home in triumph to our homeland - to fulfill the Charge that G-d gave us.
We have not yet returned in triumph, and we are certainly not fulfilling our Divinely given Charge. As you correctly point out, the weak regime of traitors in Jerusalem is blatantly insincere. And it is not merely insincere to the Arabs, it is insincere to the Jews they are supposed to protect.
And let us be absolutely clear here. This is not merely said in the Tana"kh, the Hebrew Bible, it is also stated in the Qur'an, that this land was given to the Children of Israel.
So, it is theoretically possible for men of good faith, rabbis and imams or qadis, to come to an agreement over this country based on the 1919 agreement between Feisal of Makka and Medina and Haim Weitzmann. Indeed, I had been working on just such a project when I started writing for Blogcritics (the parent site of Desicritics) in late 2005. But the second Lebanon War and other events in early 2006 dashed chances for such meetings to occur for reasons I'm not at liberty to go into here.
It is not my desire to see a war. It is my preference to see a solution where the Kingdom of Jordan becomes the center of "Palestinian" Arab identity, with Arabs living in this country, all of them, receiving Jordanian citizenship, that they may participate in the national life of a nation and not be stateless or ever in danger of being stateless. Israeli Arabs who are now citizens would also become citizens of the Kingdom of Jordan, if they so desired to.
Those living in Israel would be expected to obey Israeli law and pay Israeli taxes, with a portion of those taxes collected in Gaza and Judea and Samaria remitted to the Kingdom of Jordan. Those willing to live in peace in Israel could keep their land; those who desire to reside elsewhere would have the opportunity to do so, but would not be forced off the lands they till.
They would choose their own leaders and live in their own towns and villages in peace, under Israeli sovereignty. In addition, Israel would undertake to extend its kupat Holim system, system of medical care, to Jordan, so that all the residents of Israel and Jordan could have quality medical care.
If the Arabs here were not rebelling against Israeli authority, there would be no reason for checkpoints, for military patrols, for walls ruining the land, and all the other aspects of despotism that Israel has been forced to adopt in Judea and Samaria. Resident Arabs should and would be treated with the respect they are due as free individuals, ex-pats with rights to live here. Finally, and most importantly, Israel would undertake to see to it that all Arabs were paid equally as Israelis. From my point of view, this is the most heinous crime of the present regime with respect to Arabs, as it not only cheats Arabs, it jades Israelis and makes them contemptuous of honest labor.
This would be peace, not war!! But I do not foresee this happening.
What I foresee happening is war, terrible war, with many thousands of dead in this country, both Arab and Jew. I foresee massacres of Arabs in response to an Arab missile bombardment that will leave flaming cities and factories on our coast, and which will cause Jews to rise and kill as many Arabs as they can in vengeance.
I foresee a foreign army of occupation attempting to take over, and I foresee terrible events as a result of this. The foreign fleets are already sitting off the coast, foreign agents infest Gaza like cockroaches, and there are at least five American military bases here. The day will come when those bases will be used to overthrown the Israeli regime and Judah will come against Jerusalem.
Each day appears to bring this closer and closer.
temporal
URL
April 2, 2008
05:40 PM
t: hello
G: speak up my child
t: hello Allah
G: be quick my child, am busy
t: i'll be quick O Allah, what did you tell
G: I made no such promises
t: ...ruvy
G: I can read you mind my child...now go and let me golf
t: thank you Allah, may you bless Yourself
Anamika
April 2, 2008
07:14 PM
#64: serious delusion but this bit takes the (divine) cake: "If the Arabs here were not rebelling against Israeli authority, there would be no reason for checkpoints, for military patrols, for walls ruining the land, and all the other aspects of despotism that Israel has been forced to adopt in Judea and Samaria."
Damn! How come more gods aren't rea