Palestenian-Israeli Conflict

I'm just trying to be a realist. The Israelis are just as guilty as the Palestinians of following a theocratic ideology that refuses to allow the possibility of compromise. The Torah says God gave the land to the Hebrews and that's the end of it for many Israelis, while Mohamed said to drive the unbelievers from the land, which is the end of it for many Palestinians. The conflict will continue long after we are gone because of it. The current situation is unacceptable in terms of human lives lost, yet the alternative with a two-state solution is much worse. An independent Palestine will inevitably arm itself until it feels strong enough, then will invade Israel. That's if the Israelis don't invade first to preemtively stop the Palestinian arms build up. You can't force peace on people; they have to want it. That's been my point throughout this thread: neither side really wants peace, unless it involves winning the conflict. I've focused on the Palestinians because I find their tactics abhorrant and the sympathy they recieve from so many people to be completely undeserved. If you examine their own writings you'll see they don't want peace without the destruction of the Jewish state. A 2 state solution to them is not an end to the conflict, just the first step in being able to obtain weapons on-par with the Israelis. As many of others in this thread have been quick to point out, it doesn't look like the Israelis really want peace with an independent Palestine either.

The situation is much like the Balkans, where 10 years after NATO stopped the fighting, NATO is still there to keep the peace. As soon as we leave, those people will go right back to killing each other in the name of a hundreds of year old hatred. 100 years ago you could read headlines about ethnic violence in Serbia that could be mistaken for a 1996 headline from the London Times. Only the presence of a strong, armed force kept the peace then, or under Tito, or today. When that presence is gone, the violence will start again.

Israel and Palestine are no different, and as long as neither side wants peace, there won't be any.
 
Like I said, OJ Simpson was found 'not guilty' too, but do you really think he didn't do it?

The UN is irrelevant because there is no form of soverignty above the Nation-state, at least not on this Earth.

However, if you're such a staunch supporter of the UN and it's 'authority', I assume then that you are also in favor of the UN decision to create Israel and would support using force to defend it's existence?
 
with all the corruption happening under him, whether he was directly involved or not, its his responsibility. His son was not cleared.
 
I understand that the Palestinians have inferior weapons to fighter jets. But there really is not that much difference between the automatic weapons that both sides use. And mortar attacks are not incredibly accurate on the first shot, but they can be zeroed in pretty easily. And both sides have used mortar attacks.

I think it would be better to make swift SWAT style raids that attack each other and minimize casualties. However, that doesn't seem to be either group's style.
 
*sigh* I tire of this.
Despite saying in the last line that neither side wants peace, the bulk of this post as well as the others place blame in Islam mainly, and then the Palestinians. Why else would you post a site like apostatesofislam.com? What does that tell us about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?
I'd suggest you read the Torah as well as the Quran so you can get your facts straight about what each says. I don't think that a few crazy sites count as evidence.
Peace only comes when both sides are satisfied with the solution. A force of troops to stop violence doesn't mean there is peace. People will not live in peace if the situation they are in is unfair.
The line "the current situation is unacceptable in terms of human lives lost" coming from you after you take an attitude that the Palestinians deserve it and don't care about their deaths is a bit strange.

"That's been my point throughout this thread: neither side really wants peace, unless it involves winning the conflict."
No it hasn't. It has shifted from Islam is evil to Kofi Annan is bad to Islam is evil and neither side wants peace.
 
There's nothing strange at all. Given that there can be no peace, options become: 1. side with the Palestinians 2. side with the Israelis 3. Side with no one and act smug in my own neutral moral superiority. I choose to side with the Israelis because the Palestinians' embrace of terrorism and support of world-wide Jihad against the west in general. The websites serve to illustrate the central role jihad plays in Islam and Arabic culture and hence, the motivations of the Palestinians. Let's not forget that in addition to websites, I also pointed to a dozen or more sources written by leading experts. If Israel were to destroy Palestine, the problem will end. If the Palestinians destroy Israel, Hamas and the other Jihadist Palestinian groups will move on to Russia, or the Balkans, or to Spain in order to fulfil what they see as the holy will of allah in accordance with their Jihadist beliefs. Jihad is so prevelant, it is often called the sixth pillar of Islam. The same ideologues who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan could be found fighting for the Bosnians in the Balkans, the Chechens in Chechnia, against the Israelis in the West Bank, and against the Americans in Iraq. You can call it whatever you'd like, but there's no denying that with few exceptions (the '91 Gulf War for one) every significant conflict in the world since the fall of the Berlin Wall has involved militant, radical islam, driven by jihadists, as a root cause. Palestine is but one of many battlefields where the real conflict is being waged. Jihadists (read: Hamas) don't want a 'fair' solution, they want Islam as practiced in the 11th century instituted world-wide, and most especially in the lands Muslims controlled during the 11th century. To deny that this is central to the Palestinian cause, a driving force in their current politics is to turn a blind eye to a problem you claim to want to see peacefully resolved.
 
to everyone in America maybe, the rest of the world still see a need for the UN, its just Americas arrogance that weakens its position.
 
another lie, the Palestinians strugle against the zionist oppressors, they are not terrorists they are fighting for there freedom.



another lie, many Palestinians love the west,



so what is your point you seem to suggesting that all Muslims, Arabs and Palestinians and Many African and Asians are all Jihad crazed terrorists,

maybe you should get out more, take a trip down to your local Mosque and meet some real people actualy go meet some Muslims in the flesh.

most of the links you post really do have no credibility whatsoever. i would also suggest that these leading experts you talk about leading experts in what ? if they are leading experts in spreading hatred and islamphobia then yes they are expert



you seem to be supporting the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian by the zionists.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam#Jihad_as_the_sixth_pillar_of_Islam.3F
A few Muslims, mainly belonging to the community of the Khawarij, hold that there is a sixth pillar of Islam, jihad literally meaning "struggle" or "endeavor", often understood to refer to holy war. This is viewed by many as a misinterpretation, especially in the sense of conversion by sword; however, if the English use of "war" is meant spiritually/metaphysically (such as being "at war" with one's conscience), as opposed to literal armed conflict, it is considered to be the most precise and accurate translation. While jihad is widely considered a duty of Muslims, the view that it is one of the pillars is not shared by most theologians.



the russians have been trying to wipe out the chechens for years, so what do the chechens do, the fight back

as for the west bank, the west bank is occupied by the israelies so the palestinians have every right to fight them



can you provide any evidence of this ?
 
What amuses me the most is that you are completely serious when you say this. I know the difference between an unreliable source and a reliable one at least; please learn the difference yourself. Posting your completely biased anti-Islam sites and then finding random words to type into wikipedia is not a clever reply, as you may think. As I said before, meet some Muslims and read about Islam so that your one-sided views will change. There have been plenty of conflicts that have not involved Muslims, as well as plenty of conflicts that have. Do we automatically assume that militant Islam is the cause, or do we look at the situation the people are in?

I am not neutral in my views. I do however have at least some semblance of morals, in that I don't support the killing of innocent people, as you do. I do like to think I have more than half a brain as well in that I can look at more than one-side of an issue, even though I may take a side.
 
I'll remember you said that the next time a homicide bomber walks into a downtown pizza place and blows up a bunch of high school kids. However, you're right in that Hamas sees itself as trying to liberate Palestine. But not just from their 'Israeli oppressors'.

"To Islamists, all world Islamic order is to be recaptured, reorganized, and reintegrated. The question of Palestine is therefore not one of national resistence. Palsietine is a part of the muslim world that was "taken away by the settler Jews," not just a homeland that the Palestinian population has lost." -Dr. Walid Phares, Professor of Middle East studies, ethnic and religious conflict at Florida Atlantic University.




Not the jihadists who run the gov't.



"Islam: A religion of peace?
Dr. Gordon Nickel

The problem of Muslim radicalization has been on the agenda of all nations since 9/11. But Canada faces a unique dileofftopic because the doctrine of multiculturalism is seen as intrinsic to our national identity. The recent disruption of an alleged homegrown Islamist terror plot has caused many Canadians to ask: How can multiculturalism -- which preaches tolerance above all else -- be squared with a militant, intolerant creed that demonizes non-believers? This week, the National Post presents a week-long series of articles examining this question. In today's second instalment, Gordon Nickel examines the claim that Islam is inherently a 'religion of peace.'

Since the London bombings of 7/7, there has been a renewed effort among Muslims in the West to present Islam as a religion of peace. This has come in response to persistent probing of the relationship between Islam and violence. Here in Canada, this issue recently leapt to the front pages following news that all 17 suspects in an alleged Ontario-based terror plot are Muslim.

For some Muslims, the rise of homegrown terror has meant an interest in re-examining the foundational texts that extremists have used to justify their attacks -- the Koran, the Hadith (traditions of what the prophet of Islam said and did), the Sira (earliest biography of the prophet), and works of Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). Some are challenging classical interpretations of these texts that have held sway for centuries.

When the Koran is cited by Muslims in response to questions about violence, it is often discussed in such a way as to shut down a meaningful exploration of the text. One or two mild passages are usually offered, as if these fully represented the contents of a scripture containing 6,000-plus verses. But the Koran -- literally recitation -- is a collection of diverse materials that include polemic, praise, eschatology, law, narrative, battle calls, and details of the domestic life of the Prophet.

In particular, the sourcebooks contain a great deal of material relating to violence. This article reviews that small part of the material that is directly relevant to any debate about the link between Islam and terror: the coofftopicnds to fight and kill.

The Koran contains five coofftopicnds to kill and 12 coofftopicnds to fight (literally, try to kill). Most are found in the second (verses 190, 191, 193, 244), fourth (vv. 76, 84, 89, 91) and ninth (vv. 5, 12, 14, 29, 36, 123) suras.

The coofftopicnds address a number of different situations, from fighting those who fight you to fighting totally. The objects of the fighting and killing include the unbelievers, the associators (mushrikin, or polytheists) and the friends of Satan.

In classical Muslim discussions of these verses, two verses attracted more attention than any others. They came to be known as the sword verse (9.5) and the verse of tribute (9.29).

The verse of tribute concerns the people of the book -- generally understood by Muslims to be faith communities possessing a scripture, especially Jews and Christians. The coofftopicnd is to fight those who have been given the book until they pay the tribute (jizya) out of hand and have been humbled. The coofftopicnd in the sword verse is to kill the associators (mushrikin) wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. At face value, therefore, polytheists appear to be at greater risk than Jews or Christians.

The Arabic verb in all of these verses is not the verb related to jihad. Rather, it is the verb qatala in its first (to kill) and third (to fight, try to kill) forms. The Koran contains many other verses using forms of qatala which -- though not imperatives -- appear to encourage fighting or killing. Among these is 61.4: Allah loves those who fight in his way.

These are the coofftopicnds. But what do they mean? That is, of course, a matter of interpretation. Those who want to give a peaceful interpretation to these verses face challenges from both the classical medieval Muslim consensus and the interpretations of popular figures within the 20th-century Islamic revival.

Muslim scholars have produced lively commentaries (tafsir) on the verses of the Koran from the second Islamic century up to the present. The earliest complete commentary on the Koran was written by Muqatil ibn Sulayman (d. 767). Muqatil seems to take the coofftopicnds to fight and kill at face value.

One of the interpretive principles that Muqatil and later commentators used was to link passages in the Koran with events in the story of Muhaofftopicd, the prophet of Islam. These events are arranged in a continuous narrative in the Sirat Rasul Allah of Ibn Ishaq (d. 767).

Muslim scholars assigned each of the Koran's 114 suras to initial recitation by Muhaofftopicd in either Mecca or Medina; and within those main divisions, they gave each sura a place in a definite chronology. The establishment of such a chronology permitted the concept of abrogation -- by which recitations originating later in time took precedence over apparently contradictory passages recited earlier.

The classical Muslim understanding that developed from these principles was that the coofftopicnds to fight and kill could be arranged chronologically in the prophet's lifetime -- from the initial permission Muhaofftopicd gave to his followers to fight, to instructions on defensive warfare, to conditional aggression, to open unrestricted warfare as the Prophet's forces grew stronger later in his life. Peaceful passages in the Koran were considered to be superseded by materials with a warlike tone, especially Sura 9.

David S. Powers, professor of near eastern studies at Cornell University, has noted that Muslim scholars of abrogation such as Ibn Salama (d. 1020) claimed the sword verse cited above (9.5) had abrogating power over 124 other verses, including every other verse in the Koran which coofftopicnds or implies anything less than a total offensive against the non-believers. U.S.-born historian John Wansbrough found that the sword verse became the scriptural prop of a formulation designed to cover any and all situations which might arise between the Muslim community and its enemies. Influential Islamist authors such as 'Abd al-Salam Faraj, Maulana Maududi and Sayyid Qutb have all expressed their agreement with the classical interpretation of the coofftopicnds to fight and kill.

A famous illustration of this Islamist tendency is in the pre-9/11 communiques of Osama bin Laden. His Declaration of War of October, 1996, makes prominent use of Koranic coofftopicnds to fight and kill. His Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders of February, 1998, opens with the sword verse and applies it directly to those he considers to be the modern enemies of Islam.

Indeed, one of the greatest challenges facing peace advocates in Muslim nations is that the Islamist voices that seem to have the greatest appeal to youth are those that portray the Koranic coofftopicnds to kill as clear and unequivocal. Some of these Islamists have already carefully processed Western criticisms and have deliberately reasserted the classical understandings. For instance, Egypt's Sayyid Qutb, a guiding force of the Muslim Brotherhood (from which al-Qaeda sprang), wrote that the tendency to interpret the Koran as if it enjoins only defensive war is an error of Muslims minds defeated by the pressure of unfavourable conditions and the treacherous propaganda of the orientalists.

But this need not be the only way of interpreting these texts. One alternative -- quite common in some faith communities -- might be to decide that these were coofftopicnds for a very particular set of circumstances, but that they no longer apply to modern believers in this time. Another option, advanced recently by the Turkish scholar Israfil Balci, is to reject the classical interpretations of these coofftopicnds as a product of the political tensions of the period.

Muslims are not the only scriptural community to face challenges of interpretation. Jews and Christians who regard the Hebrew scriptures as the Word of God must deal with the conquest of Canaan, the coofftopicndment of total cherem destruction, the violence of judges like Samson and the bloodshed of kings like David -- among many other materials that suggest Godly approval for aggressive warfare against non-believers.

Conversely, warring Christians who accept the authority of the Gospel must deal with the apparent prohibition of violence in the teachings and life example of Jesus. This discussion has been going on among Christians at least since the Crusades, when critics were heard to say that it is not in accordance with the Christian religion to shed blood in this way, even that of wicked infidels. For Christ did not act thus.

Within the Christian community, one interpretive option is to read the Hebrew scriptures through the prism of the Gospel. According to the Gospel, Jesus said that he had come not to abrogate the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them. Jesus then immediately replaced the law of retaliation with non-resistance, and coofftopicnded love for enemies (Matthew 5:17, 38, 39, 44). This way of dealing with difficult materials raises many questions, but it has allowed Christians to pursue pacifism while holding to the authority of the Hebrew scriptures.

Unfortunately, the Islamic principle of abrogation runs in the opposite chronological direction in relation to violence. Because the coofftopicnds to fight and kill in the Koran are considered by Muslims to be among the recitations made very late in the life of the prophet of Islam -- at a time when his conquest of Arabia was almost complete -- Muslims scholars have been inclined to read the peaceful texts as subordinate to the later ones.

In other words, Muslims seeking to find a peaceful message in the Koran must fight not only the plain meaning of the Koran's text and the current fashion for militancy, but also the arrow of Muslim history.

Interpreting the words of Muslim scripture so that they pose no threat to peaceful coexistence with non-believers thus seems a large challenge. In view of the high stakes in the world today, however, it is certainly a challenge worth taking up. Otherwise, Canadian proponents of multiculturalism will have a harder time arguing that traditional Islam is just another peaceful element in Canada's multicultural quilt.

- Gordon Nickel has a PhD in the earliest commentaries on the Koran and teaches in British Columbia.

'FIGHT IN THE WAY OF ALLAH THOSE WHO FIGHT YOU'

What follows are selected Koranic references to fighting and killing infidels.

- Baqara (2):190 - And fight (qaatiloo) in the way of Allah those who fight you.

- Baqara (2):193 - Fight them (qaatiloohum), till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah's

- Baqara (2):244 - So fight (qaatiloo) in the way of Allah, and know that Allah is all-hearing, all-knowing.

- Nisaa' (4):76 - Those who are believers fight (yuqaatiloona) in the way of Allah, and the unbelievers fight in the idols' way. So fight (qaatiloo) the friends of Satan; surely the guile of Satan is ever feeble.

- al-Anfaal (8):39 - Fight them (qaatiloohum), till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah's entirely.

- al-Taubah (9):12 - But if they break their oaths after their covenant and thrust at your religion, then fight (qaatiloo) the leaders of unbelief.

- al-Taubah (9):29 - Fight (qaatiloo) those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and his messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.

- al-Taubah (9):123 - O believers, fight (qaatiloo) the unbelievers (kuffaar) who are near to you, and let them find in you a harshness (ghilza).

- Baqara (2):191 - And slay them (aqtuloohum) wherever you come upon them

- Baqara (2):191 - But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then if they fight you, slay them (aqtuloohum) -- such is the recompense of unbelievers.

- Nisaa' (4):89 - then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them (aqtuloohum) wherever you find them

- Nisaa' (4):91 - If they withdraw not from you, and offer you peace, and restrain their hands, take them, and slay them (aqtuloohum) wherever you come on them; against them we have given you a clear authority.

- al-Taubah (9):5 - Then when the sacred months are drawn away, slay (aqtuloo) the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush.

- Nisaa' (4):74 - So let them fight (yuqaatil) in the way of Allah who sell the present life for the world to come; and whosoever fights (yuqaatil) in the way of Allah and is slain, or conquers, we shall bring him a mighty wage.

- Muhaofftopicd (47):4 - When you meet the unbelievers, smite (darba) their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads."





Nice try, but if you're going to lift something out of context, you might want to wait until the source isn't readily available. It's easier for you to confuse people that way. The very next sentence in that post was, "if the Palestinians destroy Israel..." Far from a call for ethnic cleansing, I was pointing out the implications of each side 'winning' the conflict.




" Personal efforts to enhance jihad are part of communal jihad. Many analysts and scholars in modern times presented jihad as either personal-spiritual or as collective-political. Muslim scholars' distinction between al jihad al akbar (greater internal and spritirual strife) and jihad fi sabeel al uofftopic (at the service of the community) force modern scholars to draw political conclusions. In fact, Muslim scholars conceive all levels of jihad to be at the service of the global jihadic effort for the advancement of the community
Personal jihad is at the service and in preparation for the wider, ultimate jihad. Many western writers and apologists for modern jihad have tried to portray personal jihad as a "spiritual experience on the inside," almost like yoga. Such efforts can only blur the public's vision and its grasp of the real dangers emanating from the modern use of jihad." - Dr. Walid Phares, Professor of Middle East studies, ethnic and religious conflict at Florida Atlantic University.



And the old testement says the land was given to Israel by God. That would make the Palestinians squatters who need to be evicted by force if necessary, right? What kind of logic is that? You're missing the point: which is the world-wide jihadist movement has seen the same people fighting on multiple 'fronts'. There's not just ethnic Chechens fighting the Russians, there's jihadists from all nationalities fighting. The same is going on in Palestine and Iraq. The 'true believers' are drawn to the conflict like moths to a flame.





Somalia, Sudan, Philippiens, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Iraq, Israel, The Balkans, Rwanda, Chechnia, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey,... need I go on?
 
A few lines out of context don't mean a thing. I think you also forget that the Bible and Torah both have lines like these in them. That is why I said to actually read the Torah and Quran so that you get a real picture of what is being taught. Perhaps you can look at both sides of an issue as well...you only read anti-Muslim propaganda. 3rd time...actually learn about something yourself before you comment on it.
 
just because muslims are involved doesn't mean you can classify them under the banner of militant islam, to do so would equally accuse christianity.
 
I also ask about Rwanda.
Have you noticed that in all of these conflicts, Muslims are the ones with the most dead? Could this be a reason as well?
 
So why don't you go ahead an enlighten me on what constitutes a reliable source? I've posted links to websites, journals, books, research groups, news reports, think tanks, and magazines. You're trying to tell me they're all biased and unreliable? That there's no truth to be found in any of them? God, I hope you never sit on a Doctoral Defense board; the University will have to close for lack of professors.

What makes you think I've never met any Muslims? Aside from the ones who were trying to kill me in Iraq and Afghanistan, I've known plenty. I've worked with them, worked for one, had teachers and professors who were Muslim, and spent more than a little time in Muslim dominated cultures. Quit trying to explain away the reality of Islamist Jihad philosophy and it's prevelance in the Muslim world by trying to convince yourself it's the ramblings of one who is ignorant of Islam. Instead, pull your head out of the sand, go do some research into the Jihadist doctrine, look at it's historical place in the development of Islam, and then see if you don't reevaluate your opinion.
 
the only views you are causing me to re-evaluate is whether I've given the US Armed Forces the benefit of the doubt once too often. I sincerely hope that you are not the norm.
 
No I didn't forget about what the Torah says; in fact I already pointed that out. I have read both the Torah and the Quran. And 3rd time back at you: I've learned more than I've ever wanted to know about the issue.
 
Back
Top