Freedom of expression and islam

[orangedays]

Originally Posted by dude1394

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...e_of_Palestine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_partition_plan

I'd have to look at it a little closer. Reviewing this from wikipedia it looks like much of the violence began as typical immigration assimilation issues after being conquered during WW1. Nothing particularly outrageous like the government coming in a moving folks off their lands. Just immigration that wasn't desired. However it is obviously a very prominant reminder of the fall of the Ottoman Empire which I think has more to do with it than anyone giving a crapola about the palestinian people in the arab community.

It appears that the violence started the economy to become seperate (obviously not good as very few islamic countries have been successful with modernity). The palestininians might have a gripe, but the rest of the islamic culture either couldn't abide a non-muslim country in their midst or just used it in general to incite their populace. I suspect it was as much a mechanism to avoid the embarressment of the downfall of the islamic empire and to keep the populace of the local tyrants agitated and mad about something besides their own lack of progress.

Interesting read about how violence was a natural offshoot of over-immigration. The situation sounds almost akin to frenzy following the publishing of the political cartoons in question, "There was violent incitement from the Palestine Muslim leadership that led to violent attacks against the Jewish population." That's a shame, I wonder how different things would be if there were more responsible leaders.

From the same article:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Division of Palestine by United Nations
Main article: 1947 UN Partition Plan

The United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations, attempted to solve the dispute between the Palestinian Jews and Arabs. The UN appointed a committee, the UNSCOP, composed of representatives from several states. None of the Great Powers were represented, in order to make the committee more neutral. UNSCOP considered two main proposals. The first called for the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states in Palestine, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration. The second called for the creation of a single federal state containing both Jewish and Arab constituent states. A majority of UNSCOP favoured the first option, although several members supported the second option instead and one member (Australia) said it was unable to decide between them. As a result the first option was adopted and the UN General Assembly largely accepted UNSCOP's proposals, though they made some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal.

The partition plan was rejected out of hand by the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs and by most of the Arab population. Most of the Jews accepted the proposal, in particular the Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-formation. Numerous records indicate the joy of Palestine's Jewish inhabitants as they attended the U.N. session voting for the division proposal. Up to this day, Israeli history books mention 29 November, the date of this session, as the most important date in Israel's acquisition of independence.

Several Jews, however, declined the proposal. Menachem Begin, Irgun's leader, announced: "The partition of the homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature by institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. The Land of Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever". His views were publicly rejected by the majority of the nascent Jewish state. Palestinian Arabs, on the other hand, claim that this publicly expressed acceptance was mainly propaganda for the consumption of Western nations, and that Begin's statement more accurately reflected the real intentions of the founders of the State of Israel.

On the date of British withdrawal the Jewish provisional government declared the formation of the State of Israel, and the provisional government said that it would grant full civil rights to all within its borders, whether Arab, Jew, Bedouin or Druze. The declaration stated:

We appeal ... to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.
Thus, upon creating the state - any inhabitants inside the newly formed State of Israel, whether Palestinian Jews or Palestinian Arabs, became Israeli.

Palestinians consider a far more accurate statement of the intention of the founders of Israel to be that of Chaim Weizmann, who reportedly said:

[Our intention is to] finally establish such a society in Palestine that Palestine shall be as Jewish as England is English, or America is American.
According to an October 17, 1947 testimony before the United Nations by Moshe Shertok of the Jewish Agency, "the Jews have, so far, managed to acquire less than seven percent of the land area of Palestine."[5]

The violence faced by early Jewish settlers prior to this mandate was a modicum of what they faced following it...I'll find more evidence pointing to the partitioning of land by outside forces as the key cause after class. More coming...

[Mavdog]

There is a huge difference in the situation in the middle east prior to 1967 and after 1967.

that is a consequence of the change in arab leadership (which in itself is a misnomer...) such as the death of nasser, rise of despots such as hussein and assad, as well as the occupation of the lands that israel went into.

the common arab who was inside the land that formed the state of israel became a pawn...these are the people we now call "palestinians". They were told by their leadership that the israelis would kill them if they stayed, so they fled, thinking the arab countries would have an easy time defeating the fledgling nation of israel. they were wrong, israel wasn't defeated and the israelis didn't slaughter the common arab either.

after the first war these refugees were ignored by the arabic leadership, left in camps that still exist today. if anyone is to blame for the plight of the palestinians it is the arabs themselves imo.

what many fail to see is that the arabs and the israelis did have an integrated economy for many decades until 67, and even then it was only after the terrorists plied their trade beginning in the 70's did israel react defensively and curtail the easy access to job markets by the palestinians. the infitada has only reinforced the division of the two economies.the israeli economy, especially the agricultural portion, depends on the labor the palestinians provide. it's in many ways similar to the hispanic immigrants in the us.

[orangedays]

A rough historical synopsis from "ifAmericansknew.org" (in deference to 56Kers and as a courtesy to you guys, I've provided links to the maps rather than posting the images since they are huge). The site is admittedly a little anti-Zionist (I don't share a number of their views), but if you ignore the political undertones, the history is accurate (and it saves me the need to write all of this myself...ah senioritis ).
_______________________________________________

Background

The land of Palestine was inhabited by Palestinian Arabs. In 1850 these consisted of approximately 400,000 Muslims, 75,000 Christians, and 25,000 Jews. For centuries these groups had lived in harmony: 80 percent Muslim, 15 percent Christian, 5 percent Jewish.

Map of Historical Palestine

But then in the late 1800s a group in Europe decided to colonize this land. Known as "Zionists," this group consisted of an extremist minority of the world Jewish population. They wanted to create a Jewish homeland, and at first considered locations in Africa and South America, before finally settling on Palestine for their colony.

At first this immigration created no problems. However, as more and more Zionists immigrated to Palestine — many with the express wish of taking over the land for an exclusively Jewish state — the indigenous population became increasingly alarmed. Eventually, there was fighting between the two groups, with escalating waves of violence.

U.N. Partition Plan This is where I feel the real trouble began to brew.

Finally, in 1947 the United Nations decided to intervene. However, rather than adhering to the democratic principle espoused decades earlier by Woodrow Wilson of "self-determination of peoples," in which the people themselves create their own state and system of government, the UN chose to revert to the medieval strategy whereby an outside power arbitrarily divides up other people’s land.

Under considerable pressure from high-placed American Zionists, the UN decided to give away 55 percent of Palestine to a Jewish state — despite the fact that this group represented only about 30 percent of the total population, and owned under 7 percent of the land.

Map of U.N. Partitioned Land

1948 War

When the inevitable war broke out the outcome was never in doubt, according to U.S. intelligence reports from the time. The Zionist army consisted of over 90,000 European-trained soldiers and possessed modern weaponry, including up-to-date fighter and bomber airplanes. The Arab forces, very much a third-world army, consisted of approximately 30,000 ill-equipped, poorly trained men. The U.S. Army, British intelligence, and the CIA all agreed: it would be no contest.

By the end of the 1948 war the Jewish state — having now declared itself "Israel" — had conquered 78 percent of Palestine — far more than that proposed even by the very generous UN partition plan. And three-quarters of a million Palestinians had been made refugees. Over 400 towns and villages had been destroyed, and a new map was being drawn up, in which every city, river and hillock would receive a new, Hebrew name. All vestiges of the Palestinian culture were to be erased. In fact, for many decades Israel — and the US, following its lead — denied the very existence of this population. Golda Meir once said, in fact: "There is no such thing as a Palestinian."

1967 War (This is where Mavdog's comment comes into play.)

In 1967, Israel conquered still more land. Following the Six Day War, in which Israeli forces launched a highly successful, Pearl Harbor-like surprise attack on Egypt, Israel occupied the additional 22 percent of Palestine that had eluded it in 1948 — the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. It also occupied parts of Egypt (which since were returned) and Syria (which remain under occupation).

Map of Territories occupied by Israel since June 1967

Current Conflict

There are, then, two issues at the very core of the continuing conflict and escalating violence in the Middle East:

First, there is the inevitably destabilizing effect of trying to maintain an ethnically preferential state, particularly when the exclusionist entity is of largely colonial origin. As we have seen, the original population of what is now Israel was 95 percent Muslim and Christian. And yet, Muslim and Christian refugees are not being allowed to return to their homes in the current "Jewish state." Israeli peace negotiators refuse to even discuss the possibility of applying this UN guaranteed right.

Second, Israel’s continued confiscation of Palestinian land in the West Bank and Gaza is being resisted by the Palestinian inhabitants. It is these occupied territories that, according to the Oslo peace accords of 1993, were going to become a Palestinian state. However, when Israel continued to take land in these areas and to move its citizens onto it, the Palestinian population rebelled. This uprising, called the "Intifada" (Arabic for "shaking off") began at the end of September 2000 and continues to this day.

[sixeightmkw]

Only if the Jews would have believed that Jesus was the son of God, then none of this would happen. This "fight" goes all the way back to the beggning of the nations. Cain and Abel, Jacob and the 12 tribes of Israel. God promised them the land and he was with them in conquering the land. When Jesus came, he did away with the old law, in essence doing away with the the concept of "their land". Everyone was now to be under the grace of God, unlike what they beleive that they are the chosen people. If they would have accepted Jesus as the son of God then there wouldn't be a war. But then he would not have died for our sins and his plan would have not been fulfilled. Kind of a catch 22. There will always be was over this land becusae the Jews feel it is their right to have the land.

[Mavdog]

orange, that is an EXTREMELY biased assessment.

the depiction of the israeli army in 1948 as "European-trained soldiers and possessed modern weaponry, including up-to-date fighter and bomber airplanes" is as absurd as it gets. first, the israelis who were european had just been through the nazi extermination campaign, and were NOT "trained soldiers" at all. second, the arab armies were at the least 3x's the size of the israelis. also, the 67 war was not a "pearl harobor type of attack" although I will agree it was pre-emptive. Egypt and Syria, as well as Jordan, had amassed troops at the border preparing to attack israel.

it's odd that the author glosses over the 73 war when the arabs attacked israel on one of the holiest religious days in judaism.

all in all too slanted a write up imo.

[orangedays]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

orange, that is an EXTREMELY biased assessment.

the depiction of the israeli army in 1948 as "European-trained soldiers and possessed modern weaponry, including up-to-date fighter and bomber airplanes" is as absurd as it gets. first, the israelis who were european had just been through the nazi extermination campaign, and were NOT "trained soldiers" at all. second, the arab armies were at the least 3x's the size of the israelis. also, the 67 war was not a "pearl harobor type of attack" although I will agree it was pre-emptive. Egypt and Syria, as well as Jordan, had amassed troops at the border preparing to attack israel.

it's odd that the author glosses over the 73 war when the arabs attacked israel on one of the holiest religious days in judaism.

all in all too slanted a write up imo.

I agree that it's biased, I admit I only took 3 min. to do a search and copy+paste/format and that it's an imperfect source. However, the basic information contained therein is still accurate and usable. I ask that you don't focus on the depictions of the army, etc. and more on the history (less opinion) and progression of the landgrab. The gist I was trying to convey concerns the escalation of immigration-related violence mentioned by dude following the 1947 U.N. partition.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by orangedays

I agree that it's biased, I admit I only took 3 min. to do a search and copy+paste/format and that it's an imperfect source. However, the basic information contained therein is still accurate and usable. I ask that you don't focus on the depictions of the army, etc. and more on the history (less opinion) and progression of the landgrab. The gist I was trying to convey concerns the escalation of immigration-related violence mentioned by dude following the 1947 U.N. partition.

the "basic information" is NOT "accurate and usable" imo.

the violence in the area began in the mid 1930's, caused by two forces in the region: the british, who began to stop the immigration of mostly european jews fleeing the persecution in their homeland using force in attempts to stop the jews from settling/entering the region, and second by the muslim nationalists who (correctly I must say) foresaw their own plans for a pan-arabic country threatened by the establishment of a jewish state.

[orangedays]

Originally Posted by mavdog

the "basic information" is NOT "accurate and usable" imo.

the violence in the area began in the mid 1930's, caused by two forces in the region: the british, who began to stop the immigration of mostly european jews fleeing the persecution in their homeland using force in attempts to stop the jews from settling/entering the region, and second by the muslim nationalists who (correctly I must say) foresaw their own plans for a pan-arabic country threatened by the establishment of a jewish state.

I have already advised - in every post - that you should read the article with care and a grain of salt with regards to the political undertones so I don't see why you're taking a hard stance on the article itself. Don't lose the forest for the trees. I have done some editing to remove the biased portions for your benefit, leaving the relevant pieces of 'basic information' I alluded to.

Background

The land of Palestine was inhabited by Palestinian Arabs. In 1850 these consisted of approximately 400,000 Muslims, 75,000 Christians, and 25,000 Jews. For centuries these groups had lived in harmony: 80 percent Muslim, 15 percent Christian, 5 percent Jewish.

True.

But then in the late 1800s a group in Europe decided to colonize this land. Known as "Zionists," this group consisted of an extremist minority of the world Jewish population. They wanted to create a Jewish homeland, and at first considered locations in Africa and South America, before finally settling on Palestine for their colony.

At first this immigration created no problems. However, as more and more Zionists immigrated to Palestine...the indigenous population became increasingly alarmed. Eventually, there was fighting between the two groups, with escalating waves of violence.

True.

Finally, in 1947 the United Nations decided to intervene...The UN decided to give away 55 percent of Palestine to a Jewish state — despite the fact that this group represented only about 30 percent of the total population, and owned under 7 percent of the land.

True.

1948 War

By the end of the 1948 war the Jewish state — having now declared itself "Israel" — had conquered 78 percent of Palestine — far more than that proposed even by the very generous UN partition plan. And three-quarters of a million Palestinians had been made refugees. Over 400 towns and villages had been destroyed...

True.

1967 War

Following the Six Day War...Israel occupied the additional 22 percent of Palestine... — the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. It also occupied parts of Egypt (which since were returned) and Syria (which remain under occupation).

True.

If you want to talk about 'violence' in any context, then dude is technically correct - it started with over-immigration and racial/ethnic tension prior to any sort of Western intervention - but not in the 1930s. I feel that the "Great Uprising" was more of a buffer (where we saw the first Western ingresses) that followed the initial development of immigration-related animosities (dude's point) and preceding the blowup in the 1940s (my point) related to the demarcation of Arab lands by the U.N. in 1947 and the subsequent formation of the Israeli state at the expense of indigenous Arab claims. It's a matter of semantics, but we are talking about neither the origin-origin of the violence, nor what factors were responsible for the build-up. What you and dude are talking about are the underlying currents which preceded the current conflict, which is valid - but I am arguing that the 1947 U.N. treaty (and the conflicts resultant) was the definitive turning point which served as the root of the conflict we see today. If you look at the historical distribution of violence, you cannot deny that there was a steep increase in intensity post-1947 vs. pre-1947 - greater than anything which preceded it, including the Great Uprising and/or post-WWI immigration.

I probably should have done the edits ahead of time but my laziness got the best of me. True, the synopsis doesn't talk about the 1930s conflicts but I feel that is attributable to the fact that, again, it is a synopsis (which I mentioned when I posted it). If you would like to provide additional background on the Great Uprising and its merits I would certainly be amenable to reading it.

[Mavdog]

I am taking a "hard stance" as the article isn't accurate.

the conflict is rooted in the west. israel is western state in its design, is run by a population that is western in origin, and has survived with support of the west.

I do deny the violence saw a "steep increase in intensity post-1947", the violence saw a steep increase post 1967.

jews had lived there for a couple of millenia. they never completely left, through roman domination, through persian domination, and through ottoman domination.

the jews went through their dispora, going mainly into europe. the zionist movement was merely their desire to return. was it a an "extremist minority" (that's just the type of phrase that makes the article biased)? it doesn't appear so, the support of israel by world jewry says the opposite.

the jews who went there immigrated and paid for their property, worked at their jobs, and didn't have too much a problem with their neighbors. there was no "coloniz[ing]" of any land. the use of that phrase is a mistake.

the partitioning of the area into a west jordan and an east jordan was set out in 1917 by lord balfour. the UN in 1947 recognized the balfour declaration. israel didn't "conquer" its land, it defended the area that the balfour declaration and the UN mandate set out.

the violence began with the rise of what is called "pan-arabism" that was an arab nationalist concept that arose following the defeat of the ottoman empire. that would be 1920's.

are you aware of the 1929 hebron massacre? that was 6 years or so before the "great uprising". I would say the massacre was the turning point, for after it the jews set a course of separation from, rather than integration with, the arab community. likewise, the event exposed a ruthlessness by the arab leadership that was too remniscent of the pogroms the jews had fled in europe. following the massacre in hebron the jews formed their own defense forces as well.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by orangedays

I ask that you don't focus on the depictions of the army, etc. and more on the history (less opinion) and progression of the landgrab.

Tough tiddlywinks. When someone gets their butts kicked while trying to eradicate you, I don't constitute the result as a "landgrab". That smacks of a pretty pre-conceived notion about about a country protecting themselves for about half a century from a culture that could care much less about the palestinians than they do either their hurt feelings or an infidel on "holy" (i.e. once muslim controlled ) soil.

[orangedays]

Hm...for both Mavdog and dude, since my 'expertise' or lack thereof on this particular subject is limited to the research on the internet I've done for the purposes of this thread, I will have to hold off on replying until after I take my midterm tomorrow (studying...for once...must take priority). However, after I get back from a round of golf tomorrow afternoon I will do a little more research and see whether I was wrong, and if so, how wrong. I am certainly amiable to being incorrect and I regret already that I used that crappy article to try and convey a point without doing more background research (first hit on Google, agh). That being said, I do feel the urge to disagree with you guys even if I'm wrong...damn ego...so be patient, I'll have something for you guys to chew on soon.

[orangedays]

Actually, a quick glance through some sources shows me I've got plenty to work with so please be patient. This discussion oughtta be good.

[orangedays]

Just read through both yours posts again...realized that you're not in agreement on the issue. Hm, it's going to take some creative reconciling to disagree with both of you. Maybe I'm in over my head

[dude1394]

Yea....freedome of expression and religion of peace...indeed. In some respects it's just too damn bad if that's the law of the land. But since muslims seem to want to be under Sharia law and Sharia law allows this kinda crap, not a very good system there brotha'.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-03-18-voa7.cfm

An Afghan man who recently admitted he converted to Christianity faces the death penalty under the country's strict Islamic legal system. The trial is a critical test of Afghanistan's new constitution and democratic government.

The case is attracting widespread attention in Afghanistan, where local media are closely monitoring the landmark proceedings.

Abdul Rahman, 40, was arrested last month, accused of converting to Christianity.

Under Afghanistan's new constitution, minority religious rights are protected but Muslims are still subject to strict Islamic laws.

And so, officially, Muslim-born Rahman is charged with rejecting Islam and not for practicing Christianity.

Appearing in court earlier this week Rahman insisted he should not be considered an infidel, but admitted he is a Christian.

He says he still believes in the almighty Allah, but cannot say for sure who God really is. "I am," he says, "a Christian and I believe in Jesus Christ."

Rahman reportedly converted more than 16 years ago after spending time working in Germany.

Officials say his family, who remain observant Muslims, turned him over to the authorities.

On Thursday the prosecution told the court Rahman has rejected numerous offers to embrace Islam.

Prosecuting attorney Abdul Wasi told the judge that the punishment should fit the crime.

He says Rahman is a traitor to Islam and is like a cancer inside Afghanistan. Under Islamic law and under the Afghan constitution, he says, the defendant should be executed.

The court has ordered a delay in the proceedings to give Rahman time to hire an attorney.

Under Afghan law, once a verdict is given, the case can be appealed twice to higher courts.

This is the first case in which the defendant has admitted to converting and is refusing to back down, even while facing the death penalty.

If convicted, the case could ultimately force President Hamid Karzai's direct intervention.

The president would have to sign the papers authorizing Rahman's execution, a move that could jeopardize Mr. Karzai's standing with human rights groups and Western governments.

So far, President Karzai has not commented on the case.

But political analysts here in Kabul say he will be under significant pressure from the country's hard-line religious groups to make an example of Rahman.

[orangedays]

Ridiculous...simply ridiculous.

I certainly hope that President Karzai does the right thing when Mr. Rahman is convicted (and I am confident he will be, in those show trials) and that Mr. Rahman is able to find a safe place to go to. Either way, I think his time in Afghanistan has come to an end.

[twelli]

Moslems believe in the same god as Christians and even acknowledge Jesus as one of the prophets as far as I know, so what's the problem in converting to Christianity?

Why can't those islamic fundamentalist practice their way of religion and let others do it differently. Isn't the difference just in the interpretation? First the Jews, then the Christians, then the Muslims, then Jehova's witnesses or whoever, all believe in the same god and still have to fight about it. How stupid. Does God really want us to fight?

[orangedays]

What pisses me off as an outsider is the fact that a great of what we see today in terms of 'secular violence' is the direct result of radical (read: power-hungry and corrupted) political entities pushing political agendas. They are twisting people's religious beliefs to faciliate whatever it is that they want to achieve - and who gets the sh*t end of the stick? The innocents...the people who would like nothing better than to lead normal lives.

[dude1394]

Tough..moderate muslims have to make a choice to, they don't get to sit on the sidelines and have someone else save their asses. They had best get in the fight and pick a side or someones going to pick it for them.

They can't sit back, silently condone beheadings, bounties on writers and still expect to claim to be "innocent". Palestinians can't train their kids to blow up pizzarias and then whine and cry when someone treats them like a stinking terrrorist.

[orangedays]

Moderate muslims have to make a choice? I think that significantly oversimplies the situation that these people have to face on a daily basis - the choice that exists for these people is often (1) try and lead a normal life or (2) try and do something about it and face the very real risk of having their entire families eliminated as reprisal. What would YOU do in a situation like that? Perhaps you would risk it. What would the average American do in a situation like that? Probably the exact same thing that these moderate muslims are doing today. The entities in power in these places do not tolerate dissent - they crush it...we cannot condemn people for being helpless. By your logic, why didn't the Kurds rise up against Saddam while he was systematically eliminating them from the face of the planet? Why don't the black Sudanese rise up against the Sudanese government in Darfur? Why didn't the Jews rise up against Hitler? It's not like these people have a real choice - what would you suggest they do? Mobilize militias against the might of a government-sponsored army? They would be crushed. Vote? The political entities in power are not exactly tolerant of dissent - they eliminate it wherever they find it...violently. Going along the lines of the Holocaust example, by your logic, should we condemn the average, non-military German citizen who did nothing to stop Hitler's actions (despite being morally opposed to them)?

Lastly, one thing I feel you need to adjust is your point-of-view of these people in the Middle East (Palestinians in this case). Not every Palestinian is training their kid to be a suicide bomber...the minority holds the majority hostage through fear. Just as a tiny group of terrorists held the United States hostage with fear following 9/11 (and, I would argue, still does today). It is a very sad reality, but it is a reality nonetheless. And I think it is irresponsible for us, as humans, to say, "tough" to these people for their inability to save themselves. If it were as easy as making a choice, then Goddamn right they should go out and fight. But they know, and I know, and YOU know that that is a fight they cannot win. Should we abandon these people? No. Absolutely not.

[dude1394]

It's those dang jews people again. The more I observe this crude the more it resembles Nazi Germany. Blaming everything on the jews for political power and to excuse their own failings.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...lame_Jews&only

Afghan president Hamid Karzai is intervening in the case of the Christian convert threatened with death, but the clerics are not happy about it.

And they know who’s really to blame for this.

[orangedays]

It's good to see, at least, that the President is intervening.