BK at My Rubix Cube posted about a guest editorial in the Tucson Citizen entitled Israel has no moral right to exist.
BK said The writer makes a few ignorant statements about Arabs, but I overlooked that for now. It is refreshing to see someone openly criticize Israel and its existence, and moreso to see their submission make print.
Please read it and comment.
I commented...
I heard Tammy Bruce say in that shrill voice of hers that the feud between the Jews and the Arabs has been going on for thousands of years. That's not true. In fact, it's just the opposite.
No it has been going on since the time of Abraham, when God told Abraham to make Isaac his heir, and when God promised that He would bless Ishmael and his decendents.
No people have been more tolerant of other religions than the Muslims. They never tried to kill or expel Jewish people in the lands they conquered.
They just made them Dhimmi, and required them to pay a special tax (jizya)
Unlike Christians, they did not force them to convert to their own religion.
I am not aware of Christians ever forcing one to convert to Christianity. Encourage, yes; force no. But when Muslims conquer a country the residents have three alternatives: convert to Islam, become second class citizens (dhimmi) and pay a special tax (jizya), or die.
Spain, when controlled by the Muslims, was the most tolerant place in Europe during the Middle Ages.
Tolerance and the Middle Ages are phrases I have never seen in the same sentence, regardless of the country or religion.
The Arabs didn't get mad until they decided to take their country away from them. It happened in 1949.
Actually the Balfour Declaration happened after WWI (November 2, 1917) and it was under the League of Nations.
Western powers, particularly the United States and Great Britain, decided the Jews who had escaped Europe and Russia and sought refuge in Palestine should have their own country there. In a place where Arabs had lived for centuries.
As did the Jews
The Arabs didn't mind the Jews living in their country until they decided to steal it.
Actually the Arabs pushed the Jews out from TransJordan (subsequently became Jordan) and did not pay them for their land, and they moved to the newly formed Israel, where they bought land from Arabs that decided not to stay in a Jewish country.
.... The U.N. picked the land around Jerusalem simply because Jewish ancestors had lived there 2,000 years ago.
It was the "Promised Land" given to them by God. (or G-d, as a Jew would write it)
Under that logic, the Apaches are entitled to Arizona. And the Mexican immigrants we call illegal have the right to take back land stolen from them in the Mexican-American War.
And the Muslims should have to give back all of the land they have taken by conquest. In fact Muhammad should have to give back Mecca to the Quraysh tribe that kicked him out not wanting to embrace this new religion, but that Muhammad's warriors from Medina helped him defeat.
The Iranian president has a point when he says the Jews should be given a country in Europe
When God lead Moses out of Egypt to the "Promised Land", it was not in Europe.
Read More
s. Toufeeq a. Ahmed said...
Don, I am just confused. Which one are your arguments (in italics? or in bold?)..
In Italics are the ones I agree with most...
Bold ones are just plain ignorance...
Don Singleton said...
Italics are the quotes from the article bk brought up
bold face are my responses
Specfically what do you disagree with in my response
s. Toufeeq a. Ahmed said...
Almost all. Except factual accuracy balfour decl.
The article in tuscon citizen is somebody's opinion. And like him you are also entitled to have your own opinion.
I can argue/debate with each of your 'opinions', but does that help in anyway?
There are two types of people.
- who wants to leave a better world/earth, then they lived in, for their children
- who don't care about anything, not self, not fellow human beings, not their children, not planet earth.
Peace, Your friendly neighbourhood muslim.
Don Singleton said...
s. Toufeeq a. Ahmed, certainly your second response is far more polite than "Bold ones are just plain ignorance..."
What do you find factually inaccurate about the Balfour Declaration:
(1)did it not happen after WWI?
(2)was it not November 2, 1917?
(3)was the League of Nations, not the United Nations, in existence at that time?
Because those are the three things I asserted about it.
Those are the three factual assertions I made.
As far as I can argue/debate with each of your 'opinions', but does that help in anyway? a polite exchange between people of different faiths, seems far superior to me than killing each other. If you would be interested in such an exchange, but do not want to do it here, where your fellow Muslims would be more likely to watch, I invite you to comment on this post of mine, responding to a post on ProgressiveIslam.Org
bk said...
Don, if you knew even a little bit about T2 (aka Syed Toufeeq) it is that he LOVES to debate, argue, etc and could care less if his fellow Muslims are watching. We have nothing to hide from one another, which is why we blog :)
As for your points, I can refute each one of them with historical facts that were NOT written by the winners. But I wouldn't expect an Anglo-Christian to grant credibility to them- how about you give up your apartment/ house so that a Native American can re-claim the land its on?
Better yet, let's create a brutally powerful army of Native Americans and have them bulldoze your residence, shoot you and then build a settlement in your district?
s. Toufeeq a. Ahmed said...
Don: Thanks for understanding and taking initiative for talking to different faiths. Because as you and I know, if we dont talk, we dont know each other and that is the first seed of sucpicion.
I meant, balfour decl. is accurate and all other of your comments to the tuscon citizen article, are you opinions, which I dont agree upon.
Don Singleton said...
BK As for your points, I can refute each one of them with historical facts that were NOT written by the winners. But I wouldn't expect an Anglo-Christian to grant credibility to them- how about you give up your apartment/ house so that a Native American can re-claim the land its on?
Does this mean that you do not agree with the concept that winners in a war get to keep the spoils of the war? Then how did Islam spread?
Should they be required to give back all of the land they conquered to the previous owners, or does that rule only apply to Anglo Christians?
Should the Muslims have to give back Mecca to the Quraysh tribe that kicked Muhammad out not wanting to embrace this new religion he came up with, but that Muhammad's warriors from Medina helped him defeat.
bk said...
Don, you are comparing apples and oranges. 'Winning spoils in a war' does not apply to Israel and its massive land-grab from the Palestinians.
The main reasons why the US feels it has to turn a blind eye to Israel's atrocities are:
1- Strong political lobby = money = weapons = kill Palestinians
2- Delayed action during the Holocaust = US has historical guilt = Zionists do whatever they want
3- Arab and Muslim lives are just not as important / precious / valuable as those of Israelis
The numbers speak for themselves:
121 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 763 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000.
1,084 Israelis and 4,126 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000.
7,633 Israelis and 30,563 Palestinians have been injured since September 29, 2000.
The clincher:
0 Israeli homes have been demolished by Palestinians and 4,170 Palestinian homes have been demolished by Israel since September 29, 2000.
Did you support apartheid in South Africa? If the answer is no, why would you do the same with Israel?
Think outside the box.
Don Singleton said...
Don, you are comparing apples and oranges. 'Winning spoils in a war' does not apply to Israel and its massive land-grab from the Palestinians.
What massive land grab? When did it take place?
- Balfour Declaration in 1917?
- Action in 1948 by United Nations
- Land taken in the Six Days War in 1967
- Sometime later?
... 3- Arab and Muslim lives are just not as important/ precious/ valuable as those of Israelis
The numbers speak for themselves:
121 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 763 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000.
I regret the loss of both. Are you suggesting that 642 more Jewish children should have died?
How many died as a result of an attack (suicide bomber, rocket fire, etc. and how many as a result of a response to such an attack.
The Palestenians said they wanted land free of Israeli control. Israel removed all of its soldiers and settlers from the Gaza strip, and gave them a chance to show they wanted a country of their own. Since then there have been over 100 rockets fired into Israel, and two soldiers killed and one kidnapped.
Did you support apartheid in South Africa? If the answer is no, why would you do the same with Israel?
In what way are they the same. The Israelis have not created special "homelands" and forced all of the Arabs into them. There are Arabs living peacefully in Israel right now. Some of them were killed by rockets fired by Hezbollah on a primarilly Arab city in Israel.
bk said...
The land-grab took place when Palestinians were first thrown out of their homes so that a Jewish state could be created (1948-1949).
The numbers speak for themselves. One side has one of the most powerful militaries in the world; the other side does not.
As for the 2 Israeli soldiers, yes they were kidnapped. Do you know that this was provoked by Israel kidnapping 2 men who had done nothing? Do you know how many Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners are being held by Israel without due process or credible evidence of wrongdoing?
Around 10,000. Oh my, it's another Gitmo.
Apartheid is when Israelis have swimming pools and Palestinians have no clean water to drink. Apartheid is when Israelis have easy access to education, employment and healthcare and Palestinians do not. Apartheid is when non-Jews are severely restricted in their land and home ownership, service in the armed forces and demand for political equality.
Don Singleton said...
The land-grab took place when Palestinians were first thrown out of their homes so that a Jewish state could be created (1948-1949).
You supported "Winning spoils in a war" beginning with Muhammad the people he recruited in Medina taking Mecca from the Quraysh tribe, and the many subsequent countries that Muslims took over by force.
Sources here, here, here, here, and here.
In World War I the Allied Powers defeated the Central Powers in Europe as well as the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire's lands were divided among the victors. Some of it became the new Republic of Turkey, but the the League of Nations gave Britain the land including the modern territories of Israel, Jordan, and the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and it was called the British Mandate of Palestine.
The Balfour Declaration called for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in this land, 3/4 of the land, which was east of the Jordan River (TransJordan) was to be the Arab part, and the Jews were to get the land west of the Jordan (1/4 of the British Mandate of Palestine) but the Arabs opposed he Jews immigrating.
The United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations, attempted to solve the dispute between the Palestinian Jews and Arabs. The UN created the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), composed of representatives from several states and it called for the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states in Palestine. The 1947 U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan was to divide the remaining 25% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State (the first now being the Kingdom of Jordan).
On May 14, 1948 the "Palestinian" Jews finally declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies... Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the newly declared "ISRAEL" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews and were promised to be given all Jewish property after the victorious Arab armies won the war. The truth is that 70% of the Arab Palestinians who left in 1948 – perhaps 300,000 to 400,000 of them – never saw an Israeli soldier! They did not flee because they feared Jewish soldiers, but because of a rational and reasonable calculus: the Jews will be exterminated; we will get out of the way while that messy and dangerous business goes forward, and we will return afterwards to reclaim our homes, and to inherit those nice Jewish properties as well. They guessed wrong; Israel won the war, and the Arab Palestinians are still tortured by the residual shame of their flight. Those that decided to stay are now citizens of Israel, and they live free in the Jewish state.
The numbers speak for themselves. One side has one of the most powerful militaries in the world; the other side does not.
Then if the Arabs had any sense, they would stop attacking the more powerful state.
As for the 2 Israeli soldiers, yes they were kidnapped. Do you know that this was provoked by Israel kidnapping 2 men who had done nothing?
No I don't know that, and I doubt it is true.
Do you know how many Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners are being held by Israel without due process or credible evidence of wrongdoing? Around 10,000. Oh my, it's another Gitmo.
The prisoners in Gitmo are being treated much better than they would be as free men in their own country, and much much better than they would be as prisoners in their own country.
Apartheid is when Israelis have swimming pools and Palestinians have no clean water to drink.
Are we talking about the Arab citizens of Israel, who live quite well, or those that the Arabs urged to leave when the seven armies invaded in 1948, but none of those countries would accept those people in their own countries, but instead made them live in squalor.
Apartheid is when Israelis have easy access to education, employment and healthcare and Palestinians do not.
When Israel had some settlements in Gaza, there were a lot of jobs, but the terrorists kept attacking Israel, so it forced its own citizens to come back into Israel, and turn those properties over to the Arabs, who had no idea how to run those businesses. They now have a Gaza free of Jews, but rather than creating a country out of it, they take all the money that they get and use it to buy rockets to shoot at Israel.
Apartheid is when non-Jews are severely restricted in their land and home ownership, service in the armed forces and demand for political equality.
The Arab citizens of Israel don't seem that unhappy. Do you think they would prefer to live in Gaza or the West Bank? I doubt it.
s. Toufeeq a. Ahmed said...
"The prisoners in Gitmo are being treated much better than they would be as free men in their own country, and much much better than they would be as prisoners in their own country."
Are you sure? Have you read any of amnesty international reports. Watch this movie "Road to Guantanomo"
A Prisoner if made to stay at 5 star Hilton is worse of then a life of nomad in desert. Thats what makes the word "Freedom" valuable.
My friend Don, if you have some time to spare watch this documentary. This will give you the Real side of the story.
Don Singleton said...
Are you sure? Have you read any of amnesty international reports. Watch this movie "Road to Guantanomo"
I know that the average prisoner is fed special halal meals, costing three or four times what is spent on the meals for their jailers, and the average weight gain is 18 pounds.
A Prisoner if made to stay at 5 star Hilton is worse of then a life of nomad in desert. Thats what makes the word "Freedom" valuable.
True. And a number of prisoners released have rejoined the Jihad and tried to kill more Americans.
My friend Don, if you have some time to spare watch this documentary. This will give you the Real side of the story.
No it gives one side of the story, much like most documentaries. I won't burden you with one from the Israeli side.
Muslims are so accepting of the rights of a victor in a war to take over territory and make it their own. Does that right only extend to Muslims taking over non-Muslim territory.
Or are you upset by or confused by the fact that Israel did not claim all of the conquered land as their own, and require the people living their to either convert to Judiasm, or live as second class citizens (Dhimmi), or kill them? Are you upset by the fact that they made peace with two of the countries they were at war with, and returned their land in exchange for peace, and that they were willing to do that with most of the other land?
s. Toufeeq a. Ahmed said...
I am not an Israeli nor I am an Arab.
Nor am I. I am an American who is a Christian.
So all I can say is I can just read news of their deaths and feel sorry for them. But how hard I try I can't feel their Pain and Suffering.
I cannot feel the pain of a 4 year old, who just saw her parents blown apart... nor I can feel the frustation of 8 year old who has to run to a bomb shelter 8 times a day.
I am not here to support what Egypt did or what Isreal did, or what Hezbullah is doing.
"An Eye for an Eye will leave whole world blind".
I agree with the statement, although I fail to see how the referenced article illustrates that.
Israel does this with international impunity, yet insists on disarming any aspiring Arab states.I am here to stop from world going blind, with what ever resources or means I have (which are not much, to start with).
When has Israel sought to disarm Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Yemen (the seven countries that attacked them in 1948, and some of which have attacked them since then? Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the PLO are not Arab states. They are terrorist organizations with one objective: the destruction of Israel. Israel would be happy to see resolution 1559 enforced, and all of the militias in Lebanon, including Hezbollah disarmed, and have Lebanon take full control over all of their terrority. Lebanon would find Israel to be a very good neighbor.
Unlike Israel, other Middle Eastern states are held to be rogue regimes that cannot be trusted and will abuse such technologies....
Are you foolish enough to think that if Iran gets atomic weapons that they would not immediately use them to try fulfil their stated objective, to destroy Israel, even though they know that it would immediately start an exchange of atomic weapons which would destroy the entire middle east, if not the entire world?
The United States talks about peace and justice, yet militarily and morally supports Israel's gross human rights violations against Lebanon's civilians and sovereignty....
False. The US would love to see Lebanon establish sovereignty over all of their country. Lebanon did not attack Israel, Hezbollah did, and Israel is seeking to destroy Hezbollah, not Lebanon.
Has history forgotten that Hezbollah was formed in 1982 as a direct result of the Israeli invasion of South Lebanon that was led by Ariel Sharon?....
An invasion triggered because South Lebanon was filled with the PLO, doing the same thing to Israel as Hezbollah did.
I was holidaying with my family in Lebanon when the Israeli Defence Forces started their "self-defence" bombardment....
What would you call an incursion that killed eight soldiers, kidnapped two more, and then rocket fire on innocent Israeli cities.
But I pray that when they sing the second line in the Lebanese national anthem, "Our pencil and our sword are the envy of the ages", they focus more on the pencil as their weapon.
I share that prayer.
I will ask the same question I ask you before, Don?
"Does you and me arguing/debating is going to help anybody, anyhow?
I have not killed you, or anyone you know, and you have not killed me, or anyone I know.
And we have even discovered things we can agree on. Is this not a good thing?
In response to a post on my blog, in which I said "In fact they are willing to kill not just Christians and Jews, but also other Muslims, and by other Muslims I don't just mean that Sunnis are willing to kill Shia, and vice versa, but they are also willing to kill people of their own sect, if they stand in the way of them getting power." you responded I competely agree with you.
Is complete agreement a bad thing? Is it not worth reaching out to one another and seeing if we can understand where the other is coming from?
May be we will clean up our own deamons, our own insecurities. Beyond which I dont see much.
May peace be with you and may the lord of all worlds show you the right path. Amen!
Assalamu alaikum
bk said...
Don Singleton said...
Free Palestine.
I don't have it locked up.
Under the Clinton Administration Israel offerred them most of the land they wanted, and offerred to give up parts of Israel to make up for the difference, and even offerred them East Jerusalem, and Arafat turned it down, and launched the second Intafada. He did not want peace; he wanted war.
Since then Israel pulled out of Southern Lebanon, and got attacked for doing it: rockets, dead soldiers, and kidnapped soldiers.
They pulled out of Gaza, using force against their own people, and got rocket attacks and dead soldiers and a kidnapped soldier, rather than a peaceful neighbor.
Israel is willing to give Land For Peace, just ask Egypt and Jordan. But why give Land For War.
s. Toufeeq a. Ahmed said...
AsSalaam Alikum Don,
"Is it not worth reaching out to one another and seeing if we can understand where the other is coming from?"
Yes, It is worth every penny, every minute we spend on it.
Peace.
Don Singleton said...
From your lips to God's (Allah's) ear.
No comments:
Post a Comment