Foofie wrote:McTag wrote:That's nicely put. Palestinians chose an adversarial relationship with Israel since the inception of Israel.
Some choice.
Yes, it was a choice, since the Israeli Arabs that are now living peacefully in their homes in Israel are doing so, because they didn't listen to the Arab invading armies, in 1948, that advised them to get out of Israel while the invading Arab armies decimate the Jews, and then these Arabs can return to Israel, sans Jews.
After reading the internet news that a British Church official (was it the Archbishop of Canterbury?) is questioning whether Britain should allow for Sharia law in Britain, I really have lost much of my positive opinion about Britain's ability to think logically. It sounds like a good Monty Python gig; unfortunately it is real, in my opinion. Where is Churchill when you really need him?
And this should be a huge red flag for all nations with growing Muslim populations. I think I read that 40% of Britain's Muslims are lobbying to be allowed to govern themselves under Sharia law? Should they be accommodated thrugh some misguided sense of sensitivity, the risk is that the Muslims will gain a majority and then the nation's constitution is easily overturned and Sharia Law becomes the enforceable law of the land.
This is almost certainly what would face Israel should it not retain its Jewish majority and autonomy.
Foxfyre wrote:
And this should be a huge red flag for all nations with growing Muslim populations. I think I read that 40% of Britain's Muslims are lobbying to be allowed to govern themselves under Sharia law? Should they be accommodated thrugh some misguided sense of sensitivity, the risk is that the Muslims will gain a majority and then the nation's constitution is easily overturned and Sharia Law becomes the enforceable law of the land.
This is almost certainly what would face Israel should it not retain its Jewish majority and autonomy.
Yeah, they should all become ethnocentrically discriminatory and oppressive states. That's the solution.
InfraBlue wrote:Foxfyre wrote:
And this should be a huge red flag for all nations with growing Muslim populations. I think I read that 40% of Britain's Muslims are lobbying to be allowed to govern themselves under Sharia law? Should they be accommodated thrugh some misguided sense of sensitivity, the risk is that the Muslims will gain a majority and then the nation's constitution is easily overturned and Sharia Law becomes the enforceable law of the land.
This is almost certainly what would face Israel should it not retain its Jewish majority and autonomy.
Yeah, they should all become ethnocentrically discriminatory and oppressive states. That's the solution.
They are working toward that very hard. And this is why a one-state solution for Israel is so ridiculous.
This reminds me of a book I read decades ago, written by a Catholic Priest, where he pointed out that Jews during the Nazi era were just a bellwether for what would happen in Europe. The point was (if I understood the book correctly) that when the Nazis were against the Jews, many people didn't care, since the Nazis weren't against them. Eventually, the Nazis expanded their scope of who was in their way.
What many people didn't realize then was that the antagonisms against Jews (by the Nazis) was "small potatoes," compared to the bigger prize of European continental domination (including eventually Britain). Does that remind one of the size of Israel (as big as New Jersey) and the size of Britain?
Foxfyre's recollections of what she read are off, and as is her want, she paraphrased what she recollects reading in the most hyperbolic and flatly false of ways. The "40%" she quotes is from
a poll (pdf file) taken in 2006 by ICM Research in Britain asking specifically, "Would you support or oppose there being areas of Britain which are pre-dominantly Muslim and in which Sharia law is introduced?" 40% of respondents answered in support of the question. Nowhere does it state that "40% of Britain's Muslims are lobbying to be allowed to govern themselves under Sharia law."
An
earlier poll (pdf file) also conducted by ICM in 2004 reported that 61% of respondents agreed that "So long as the penalties do not contravene British law, I would support Sharia courts being introduced in Britain to resolve civil cases within the Muslim community."
Why should this be "a huge red flag"? In the US battei din courts are allowed for civil cases provided that all parties involved in the case agree to the binding arbitration thereof. Does this raise "a huge red flag" as well?
Bigotry and prejudice and their attendant paranoia are terrible things to base public policy on. They're especially insidious when they're used to justify the discrimination and oppression of an entire people.
Okay, Blue, I went back and hunted up the piece. Here it is.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml
Maybe you could indicate where I misrepresented what it said? It does mention that the 40% came from a poll and I could have said that instead of suggesting 40% are lobbying--I was working from memory, however, so shoot me. At the time I was reading it I wasn't expecting to have to pass a test on the content.
The current news in UK is full of stories about the Archbishop of Canterbury wanting to allow Sharia Law to settle Muslim disputes, etc. and the considerable flack he is getting over that. Can't you just imagine? Each culture that comes to this country will be included generally under the umbrella of the United States but will be allowed to govern themselves by whatever laws they like that they brought with them?
But the fact that it is an issue that is being considered in the UK does suggest that a sizable number of their growing Muslim population is in fact lobbying for exactly that. I don't know, however, what percentage are actually doing that.
And if you think a Constitutional Parliamentary government and/or Constitutional Democratic Republic is not preferable to Sharia law, I suggest you move to a country where Sharia law is enforced and think about that for awhile before you label somebody bigoted or prejudiced even by implication just because she thinks that is a really bad idea.
foxfyre wrote:Maybe you could indicate where I misrepresented what it said?
Nowhere does it state that "40% of Britain's Muslims are lobbying to be allowed to govern themselves under Sharia law."
Quote:I was working from memory, however, so shoot me. At the time I was reading it I wasn't expecting to have to pass a test on the content.
Expect to be called on the things you say when you put them in the hyperbolic and flatly false manner that is your predilection.
Quote:The current news in UK is full of stories about the Archbishop of Canterbury wanting to allow Sharia Law to settle Muslim disputes, etc. and the considerable flack he is getting over that. Can't you just imagine? Each culture that comes to this country will be included generally under the umbrella of the United States but will be allowed to govern themselves by whatever laws they like that they brought with them?
You mean like religious Jews and Beth Din courts to which they are allowed to address civil disputes in the US? I have no problem with these courts, do you?
Quote:But the fact that it is an issue that is being considered in the UK does suggest that a sizable number of their growing Muslim population is in fact lobbying for exactly that. I don't know, however, what percentage are actually doing that.
I don't see Sharia courts as an alternative to that nation's secular courts for civil cases any different from the Beth Din courts that are already established there. If Muslims and Jews want them, let them have them.
Quote:And if you think a Constitutional Parliamentary government and/or Constitutional Democratic Republic is not preferable to Sharia law, I suggest you move to a country where Sharia law is enforced and think about that for awhile before you label somebody bigoted or prejudiced even by implication just because she thinks that is a really bad idea.
Geez. That's a ridiculous straw man argument, foxfyre. But then, that's what's expected of you.
I already live in a country that allows for Sharia arbitration for civil matters. It's called the USA.
InfraBlue wrote:foxfyre wrote:Maybe you could indicate where I misrepresented what it said?
Nowhere does it state that "40% of Britain's Muslims are lobbying to be allowed to govern themselves under Sharia law."
Quote:I was working from memory, however, so shoot me. At the time I was reading it I wasn't expecting to have to pass a test on the content.
Expect to be called on the things you say when you put them in the hyperbolic and flatly false manner that is your predilection.
It did say that 40% WANT Sharia law. And based on current events, it is fairly safe to say that Muslims are lobbying for that. Not too hard to extrapolate the 40% there, but you're right. It didn't specifically say in the article that 40% were lobbying. But neither was I quoting from the source you said I was quoting either. You made a presumption that was incorrect also.
Quote:Quote:The current news in UK is full of stories about the Archbishop of Canterbury wanting to allow Sharia Law to settle Muslim disputes, etc. and the considerable flack he is getting over that. Can't you just imagine? Each culture that comes to this country will be included generally under the umbrella of the United States but will be allowed to govern themselves by whatever laws they like that they brought with them?
You mean like religious Jews and Beth Din courts to which they are allowed to address civil disputes in the US? I have no problem with these courts, do you?
Anybody in the US can use pretty much whatever mediation process they wish to settle disputes as can anybody in the UK. There is a difference between that and giving such processes protection under the general law of the land.
Quote:Quote:But the fact that it is an issue that is being considered in the UK does suggest that a sizable number of their growing Muslim population is in fact lobbying for exactly that. I don't know, however, what percentage are actually doing that.
I don't see Sharia courts as an alternative to that nation's secular courts for civil cases any different from the Beth Din courts that are already established there. If Muslims and Jews want them, let them have them.
The Beth Din courts are strictly for the Jews to arbitrate disputes among themselves and there is no demand for recognition by the USA, UK, or Canadian legal systems. Here, read up:
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/beisdin3.html
Quote:Quote:And if you think a Constitutional Parliamentary government and/or Constitutional Democratic Republic is not preferable to Sharia law, I suggest you move to a country where Sharia law is enforced and think about that for awhile before you label somebody bigoted or prejudiced even by implication just because she thinks that is a really bad idea.
Geez. That's a ridiculous straw man argument, foxfyre. But then, that's what's expected of you.
It is not a straw man argument. It is specifically the situation Israel could find itself in should it relax its immigration policy and allow a Muslim majority, most with ties to Hezbollah or Hamas or similar groups, to become citizens with full rights. How long do you honestly believe that the Jewish parlimentary Knesset would last before it was replaced by Sharia law? Even though the Muslim population of the UK is still relatively small, there are those who see that as something to be concerned about even there.
Quote:I already live in a country that allows for Sharia arbitration for civil matters. It's called the USA.
Yup there are private arbitration procedures for just about every kind of issue or conflict in the USA, but such arbitration, should it be violated or challenged, will not be recognized in civil or criminal court in any way other than what contractual agreements can be proved. Just ask any of the Christiain churches that have split and went through the process of inner-denominational arbitration processes to divide property and assets. When they can't agree, it winds up in the civil court that rules using old fashioned USA legal principles, not church laws.
This posits the defacto recognition of Israel. It is from today's NYTs.
Israel's Secret Success
By DANIEL GAVRON
Published: February 11, 2008
Jerusalem
SOMETHING strange is happening to us Zionists in the 60th year of the state of Israel: we are repudiating our astonishing success. If in the 1880s (the start of Zionist settlement in what is now Israel) or in 1948 (the War of Independence) or even in 1967 (the Six-Day War) somebody had said that one day virtually the entire world, including all the Arab nations, would accept the existence of the State of Israel in 78 percent of the land of Israel, he would have been regarded as either idiotically optimistic or clinically insane. That, however, is where we are today. We have won, but we are refusing to accept the result.
It is as if the captain of a team winning the World Cup, a triumphant Olympic sprinter or a victor of Wimbledon were to say: "No, no. There has been a mistake. I didn't win, I lost. My victory is an illusion."
While it is true that the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, talks about wiping Israel off the map, and he might be developing the technical means to do so, he has also said that he will agree to whatever agreement the Palestinians accept. The Lebanese Islamic group Hezbollah is utterly hostile, but it is now focused on events in its own country.
The Palestinian Hamas, which rules Gaza, refuses to recognize Israel, but even that movement seeks a long-term truce, which is tantamount to de facto recognition.
Far more significantly, Fatah, the official Palestinian leadership, is negotiating peace with Israel. The member states of the Arab League, headed by Saudi Arabia, are on record as recognizing Israel within its pre-1967 borders. The world's only superpower, the United States, is solid in its support of Israel under any conceivable president.
The other four permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the European Union and the overwhelming majority of the members of the United Nations all recognize pre-1967 Israel.
Wake up, fellow Israelis, it's over, we've won! What is more we've won a lot: more than 8,000 square miles out of the 10,400 square miles of the British Mandate for Palestine. And most Palestinians have accepted this territorially lopsided resolution of the 100-year-old dispute.
Problems remain, of course. We Israelis have made a shambles of our Zionist enterprise by establishing settlements in the Palestinian territories we have occupied since 1967. Either we must disentangle ourselves from the Palestinians, or else create a structure for sharing the land with them. Many of the flagship Jewish settlements are so deep in Palestinian territory that no matter how the borders were to be redrawn, the settlements would be left inside Palestine.
And the current talk of swapping "settlement blocs" in the West Bank for equivalent amounts of land in Israel near the border is unrealistic. For any "two-state solution" to work, we would need to conduct a complete withdrawal from the West Bank. Even so, the success of the Zionist enterprise would be astounding.
If we cannot summon the determination it would take for a complete pullback, might the world, led by the United States, try to force us to withdraw? It might, but it probably won't, so we are most likely looking at some sort of single state, bi-national state or confederation. What matters is that we are acting from a position of strength, and we ought to be investing our energy and creativity in working out a long-term solution with the Palestinians that will be acceptable to both of us.
What we should not be doing is what we are doing now: besieging and blacking out Gaza, killing and arresting dozens of Palestinians in the occupied territories every month, and constructing walls and fences between us and our neighbors.
The most recent suicide bombing in southern Israel has predictably prompted calls for a new barrier along our 145-mile Egyptian border. This is unreasonable. Walls, as recent events have shown, can be breached. Palestinian terrorism against civilians has decreased over the past years, even though the barrier separating Israel and the West Bank has many large gaps. It is illogical to suppose that this incomplete wall is the factor that has reduced terrorism.
The proposal to build an additional fence along the Egyptian border represents all that is wrong with our current policies. To cower behind a wall is to demonstrate again our loser mentality at a time when we have, in fact, won. The political settlement that the world is begging us to reach is the only way to ultimately stop the violence between us and the Palestinians.
Daniel Gavron is the author, most recently, of "Holy Land Mosaic: Stories of Cooperation and Coexistence Between Israelis and Palestinians."
I agree with the ideas and sentiments expressed in the article Advocate posted. I hope they get some traction in Israel and among those here who would have us continue to support and subsidize those Zionists who, perhaps out of mere habit or the lack of imagination, believe that oppression of the Palestinians is a needed continuation of the struggle that created Israel. The truth, of course, is the contrary - they are instead undermining the security and future of Israel. There can be no security in Palestine for Israel and Israelis without peace. There can be no peace in the region without justice and equal treatment for all the people there - Israelis and Palestinians.
The Zionists will never concede their control over the Palestinians: and the Jews will never realize the peace they talk about. They are blinded by their own aparthied of the Palestinians. Truly a human tragedy with no earthly comparison in modern times.
What a legacy they will leave not only for other Jews, but for all humanity.
cicerone imposter wrote:The Zionists will never concede their control over the Palestinians: and the Jews will never realize the peace they talk about. They are blinded by their own aparthied of the Palestinians. Truly a human tragedy with no earthly comparison in modern times.
What a legacy they will leave not only for other Jews, but for all humanity.
What BS; those in Israel would love to get rid of the Pals, and tried to do this on a number occasions. Consider Camp David, for example. Remember that Israel basically never set foot in the WB or Gaza, despite hundreds of attacks from there, until the '67 War perpetrated by the Pals and other Arabs.
Advocate wrote:
What BS; those in Israel would love to get rid of the Pals, and tried to do this on a number occasions. Consider Camp David, for example. Remember that Israel basically never set foot in the WB or Gaza, despite hundreds of attacks from there, until the '67 War perpetrated by the Pals and other Arabs.
Sigh! I guess our moment of accord has passed.
The offer at Camp David was for permanent subjugation in an Apartheidt state offering the illusion of autonomy for Palestuinians in a "state" broken up into multiple, isolated cantonments (Bantustands in South Africa), with no external borders, no control of water and airspace rights, and no possibility of an independent social or economic existence, and permanent dependence of the goodwill of Israel merely for access between the parts.
The 1967 war was not "perpetrated by the Pals and other Arabs" as you say (interesting new choice of waffle words, that). Israel preempted hostilities with a sequence of surprise attacks on each of its neighbors. Certainly the decision to fortify the external borders of the West Bank and to systematically plant Israeli settlements there was not a policy well-designed to "get rid of the Palestinians". Instead it was a formula for perpetual involvement and conflict.
georgeob1 wrote:Advocate wrote:
What BS; those in Israel would love to get rid of the Pals, and tried to do this on a number occasions. Consider Camp David, for example. Remember that Israel basically never set foot in the WB or Gaza, despite hundreds of attacks from there, until the '67 War perpetrated by the Pals and other Arabs.
Sigh! I guess our moment of accord has passed.
The offer at Camp David was for permanent subjugation in an Apartheidt state offering the illusion of autonomy for Palestuinians in a "state" broken up into multiple, isolated cantonments (Bantustands in South Africa), with no external borders, no control of water and airspace rights, and no possibility of an independent social or economic existence, and permanent dependence of the goodwill of Israel merely for access between the parts.
The 1967 war was not "perpetrated by the Pals and other Arabs" as you say (interesting new choice of waffle words, that). Israel preempted hostilities with a sequence of surprise attacks on each of its neighbors. Certainly the decision to fortify the external borders of the West Bank and to systematically plant Israeli settlements there was not a policy well-designed to "get rid of the Palestinians". Instead it was a formula for perpetual involvement and conflict.
You are repeating statements that have been repeatedly knocked down in this and other threads. What is the use?
Advocate wrote:[You are repeating statements that have been repeatedly knocked down in this and other threads. What is the use?
No, I am repeating statements that you have persistently, but arbitrarily rejected in failed attempts to escape the obvious conclusion through weasel-wording, semantical evasion, and other forms of distortion.
The only thing you "knocked down" in the process was your own credibility.
Guess which "democratic" country has these check points and watch towers?
