Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

It looks like the Israelis are finally going to sieze the offer made when their soldier was captured in June 2006 and exchange him for some of the hostages they hold:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8374402.stm

Israel is one of the few regimes in the world that have a hostage taking policy - including holding parliamentarians (and women and children) as hostage. Note that 'administrative detention' is a euphemism for kidnapping and keeping hostage - the people are not held on any charges and haven't committed any crimes (otherwise they would be charged).

Israel holds about 10,000 Palestinian prisoners in jail on security grounds - a major bone of contention with the Palestinians.

Earlier this month, several Hamas MPs were freed without charge after the 40-month period of their administrative detention expired. Fifteen Hamas MPs and two from Fatah remain in detention.

Cheers,
Shafique

It would seem that Israel is taking a lfeaf from Muhammad's play book.

So, where's the beef?

I think you do the Israelis a dis-service - wouldn't they rather be taking a leaf out of Moses' play book - he massacred entire villages after they surrendered (if we believe the Bible to be accurate, as you do).

As I've stated before, you don't have issues with white Jewish terrorists killing Muslims and join those who venerate Goldstein in refusing to condemn him. Therefore you are being consistent by not condemning Israeli kidnappings of women, children, parliamentarians etc - but I'm sure you'd condemn the hostage taking of one Israeli soldier.

Now what was that quote from Jesus again.....?

Matthew 7:5 - You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye

Cheers,
Shafique

Cool - so we agree that Israel and Muhammad have a lot in common. They're two peas in a pod, two sides of the same coin, etc.

The only difference, as I see it, is that based on your logic on justifying early Muslim massacres by mentioning that the Crusaders also killed people, the Israelis have not committed any crimes because the early Muslims kidnapped/enslaved far more civilians than the state of Israel ever will.

event horizon wrote:Cool - so we agree that Israel and Muhammad have a lot in common. They're two peas in a pod, two sides of the same coin, etc.

Yes, I agree that Israel does commit the war crimes you think Muhammad committed.

I hope you join me in condeming the war crimes of Israel and don't adopt the tactic of not condemning white jewish terrorists such as Goldstein.

As I stated, Moses is accused of quite horrendous war crimes - killing women, babies and animals of defeated towns - do you similarly condemn him as well?

Cheers,
Shafique

Yes, I agree that Israel does commit the war crimes you think Muhammad committed.

Nope - I used your logic in justifying early Muslim war crimes and decided that the state of Israel has not committed any war crimes because the early Muslims kidnapped more civilians than Israel has allegedly kidnapped.

Please try and keep up.

Although I see that you're quoting from the New Testament again.

At least this time you correctly named the actual speaker of the quote. You're one for two.

I'm not clear whether you are condemning the Israelis for war crimes whilst refusing to condemn Jewish terrorists such as Goldstein, or whether you are just obsessed with what you think happened in 7th Century Arabia.

I really can't see the connection between Israeli war crimes and hostage taking and what you think early Muslims did. I can see a connection between Biblical war crimes and Israeli war crimes though.

I'm even happy to condemn the war crimes you imagine were carried out by early Muslims. It is you that is refusing to condemn some war crimes, it appears.

Cheers,
Shafique

I'm happy to condemn Israeli war crimes, real or imagined. But it should speak volumes that all of the imagined war crimes Israel is accused of committing pale in comparison to the war crimes the early Muslims carried out (or contemporary Muslim terrorists have).

I totally agree that your imagined early Muslim war crimes are greater than current Israeli crimes of hostage taking of women and children.

It is interesting that rather than condemning this hostage taking outright, you try and deflect attention from them. This is understandable for Israeli fanbois.

However, what is more unusual is the refusal to condemn Baruch Goldstein as a white Jewish/American religiously motivated terrorist. The majority of Israelis condemn him as a terrorist and denounce his use of the Bible to justify his massacre -but you join the minority who venerate his actions and consider him a saint (for they too don't condemn him).

Let me quote Jesus once again:
Matt 7:5
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Cheers,
Shafique

As I said, it speaks volumes that these alleged Israeli war crimes pale in comparison to the war crimes (kidnapping, enslavement) carried out under Muhammad and the 'rightly' guided caliphs.

I agree that you think this is the case. However, I don't see the link between Israel kidnapping and holding thousands as hostages today, with what you think happened a millenium and a half ago in Arabia.

I totally agree that Israeli actions pale into comparison with the war crimes in the Bible - a fact you seem to wish to ignore.

But why do you blame Muslims when Israeli war crimes are pointed out (no one disputes that the Israelis are holding women, children and politicians hostages)? Why don't you condemn Moses' war crimes?

Cheers,
Shafique

Some maps illustrating the point:

British era Palestine:


UN Partition plan:


1949 Armstice Line:




After 1967 war:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/six_day_war.stm
Palestinians have offered peace in return for Israel returning the land it captured in 1967 - by rights they could have asked for the Palestinian lands allocated in 1948.

Cheers,
Shafique

Levy in Haaretz asks an interesting question about this affair:

Why can we talk to Hamas about Shalit, but not peace?
11.26.2009 | Haaretz
By Gideon Levy

Why is it permissible to talk to Hamas about the fate of one captive soldier and another several hundred prisoners, but forbidden to talk to them about the fate of two nations? Never has Israeli logic been so distorted. Now, when our hearts look forward to the deal’s implementation, when every human heart should look forward to Gilad Shalit’s release - and yes, to the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, some of them political prisoners for all intents and purposes, not just “terrorists with blood on their hands” - now is the time to finally rid ourselves of some of the foolish prohibitions we have imposed on ourselves and the entire international community.
...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1130786.html


Cheers,
Shafique

Isreal and palestine is a tough one because you can compare the situation to northern Ireland and the Uk, in the end the UK, which obviously angered people in the uk had to show restraint while IRA splinters continued attacking the UK. Isreal are not prepapred to do the same and as soon as isreal perceives itself to be 'attacked' then all talks are off. So will go on for ever!

Arab nations could easily sort all this out by threatening to eject US personnel, embassies and trade from their countries for their financial support of Isreal.

Actually, the Israel Palestinian issue is quite simple - all the main points of contention have been ruled on by the international community and there is a viable peace plan that is on the table - the Arab Peace Initiative/Plan.

As voices in Israel are starting to point out (more loudly now), Israel's stance lacks credibility and consistency - eg it will talk to Hamas about swapping the hostages it holds for the one soldier Hamas holds, but refuses to officially discuss peace with Hamas.

Cheers,
Shafique