h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Gif,

Little misunderstanding. I did not intentionally try to reverse mine/your meaning. I thought we were still focused on the Temple Mount visit as a reason for the Intifada. Which I’d like to expand on now.

The Temple Mount site consists of an area of 45 acres. The Al-Aqsa mosque occupies a small area of this. The Mosque itself does not conform to any of the architectural precepts for Mosque buildings. Some historically proven facts, acknowledged by Arab and non-Arab scholars.

Erected on the ruins of the Jewish Temple it began as a Byzantine Church. The Church of St. Mary of Justinian. Built in the same period as the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. During the Sassanian(Persian) invasion of 614CE the Sassanians recognized the Magi(on a wall painting) in the Nativity Church as Zoroastrian Priests, and consequently did no damage to the Synagogues and Churches in the Levant. There were no Mosques in existence at this time.

When the Prophet Mohammed died (632CE) the only two mosques in existence were Mecca and Medina.

( Sura 17:1) of the "Furthest Mosque": "Glory be unto Allah who did take his servant for a journey at night from the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque."

The Sacred Mosque is at Mecca. The furthest Mosque could only have been Medina. Eight years after the Prophet’s death the Church of St. Mary was declared a Muslim pilgrim shrine. Eighty years after The Prophet’s death Abd El-Wahd erected a dome over the Church of St Mary and declared it the Al-Aqsa mosque commemorating the Prophet’s ascension at Medina.

Fast forward………..

An eighteen year old Jewish student tried for many months to bring to the attention of the Israeli authorities the damage that the Waqf’s illegal burrowing was doing. (This was an appeasement to “Muslim sensitivities”) Visible cracks were forming in the structure. The Israeli Government is legally responsible at both Domestic and International Law for the integrity and safekeeping of all religious and cultural monuments and sites. When pressure was applied to the Waqf concerning their activities, they formally accused Israel of causing the damage by creating “artificial earthquakes”.

Now that you’ve picked yourself up from ROFLing. I checked;
‘artificial earthquakes” are mostly lab experiments on shaking tables, or liquefied sand tests for buildings sites in earthquake prone zones.

There is more than sufficient evidence from pre-State records by European scholars and archaeologists to substantiate Israel’s claim. Israeli politicians do not need archaeology to justify the State of Israel. The politicians who need to distance themselves from politicized platforms are those politicians sporting titles such as Ayatollah and Marxist Mullah with their twisted and revisionist history. They certainly need better claims than their current mantra of “Third Holiest Site” to justify their encouragement of the Waqf’s vandalism of a site which is not their exclusive domain.

Interfaith visits between Mosques, Synagogues and Churches by respective clerics still occur. Even in Israel and the territories - It ain’t illegal and it ain’t immoral.


Couple of other interesting facts concerning the 2nd Intifada.

1. Camp David was around the time that Arafat’s five year term of office was drawing to a close. The Palestinians had been complaining(quietly of course) about the corruption within the PA. The people were looking for better leadership.

2. To this day Arafat has not told the Palestinian people what was on offer at Camp David. (I checked this out thoroughly) In other words they were, and still are. completely uninformed concerning the Camp David deal that provided the legal underpinning for a nascent Palestinian State.



This follows an old pattern of Arafat’s. When losing ground launch an Intifada.

Hi EtherZev,

Please follow the link below to a site detailing Israel's history of oppressive illegal artifical earthquakes, in direct contravention of UN resolutions - no, I'm just kidding of course . It is a laughable accusation.

I guess that the point you are making in the first part of your post is that Temple Mount isn't a 'real' Muslim holy site - that Medina and Mecca are holier - and that therefore Sharon's visit shouldn't be seen as inflammatory. Your logic is probably correct - but this isn't a logical issue, it's an emotive one. Muslims believe that Temple Mount is their holy place and Sharon must have known that. Muslims hold Sharon responsible for the deaths at Sabra and Shatila, and Sharon must have known that too. Therefore his visit was either gross stupidity or deliberate provocation. The truth, as so often in realpolitik, is an inconvenient irrelevence .

On a related point (and read this all the way through before you get angry!), I don't believe that Israel has a 'right' to exist. I don't believe (and I mean a personal belief here, I'm not talking about my interpretation of international law) that countries have rights at all. People have rights, countries don't. All the historical evidence in the world about who lived where 2000 years ago doesn't change that. BUT I do think that Israel has a right to exist in a different way - using 'Israel's rights' as a shorthand for 'the rights of the inhabitants of Israel'. Israel has been a political fact for 50 years now, so there are people who were born there and lived their whole lives there, and indeed whose parents were born there and lived their whole lives there. It's their only home, and they have every right to live there. I don't care where their great-great-grandparents came from. That applies to Jews and Palestinians alike. Those people have a right to live in a country of their own choosing and to defend their country. It's just unfortunate that they cannot agree on what country that is!

You'll note that this slice of personal philosophy basically states - a) that Israel shouldn't have come into existence; b) that now it is well-established it is as valid as any other nation, as you can't hold today's 18, 20, 30 and 40-year-olds responsible for things that happened 50+ years ago; and c) that continued settlement in the Palestinian territories is not justified. I'm not claiming this is some kind of magic 'peace formula', I'm just explaining my viewpoint. Clear as mud?

On an unrelated point, I mentioned a few posts ago that military occupation by Israel of the Palestinian Territories had stopped the suicide bombings, at least temporarily (the point I was making being that the occupation was at least effective in its aims, even if unjustified in my opinion). Someone pointed out to me (off-line) that the Intifada was the only thing that has caused a break in the Israeli policy of settlement. There's never going to be an end to this while the only way either side makes progress is by violence.

Despite your eagerness to blame Arafat for this, he was increasingly isolated and considered irrelevant by many Arab leaders during the start of the Intifada. It wasn't until Israel beseiged him in Ramallah that he once again became a figurehead/symbol for Palestinian resistance. Now he's back to the height of his popularity and influence, and Israel's leaders have only themselves to blame.

Gif

Read this, all of you. It makes some very interesting points: Israel is not a democracy, Sharon is anti-semitic, and Jews do not have the right to live wherever they please.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13087

Response to Theanthrope

But then…… if you’re Desperately Seeking the Centre and don’t approve of a bunch of young, mostly foreign vandals trashing your tax-payer funded assets (idealism is not an acceptable excuse) you may prefer an equally credentialed opposing view.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/guestcolumnists2002/thornton/thornton05-10-02.htm

Hmm, EtherZev, that's not a very good article. Only three paragraphs of the eleven in that article made reference to the details of the actual conflict, and one of them was predicated on the very point that the Tim Wise article (linked to by Theanthrope) tries to refute, that "Perhaps one reason Israelis are so despised by the Western left is that they look and live basically like us..."

As a side issue, I think the author of that article displays manifest racism, in such lines as: "The engine of Arab rage is neither nationalism nor anti-colonialism, but religious chauvinism and wounded ethnic pride..." or "Changing the material conditions in the West Bank and Gaza will not eliminate that hatred of Israel, a hatred whose roots lie in the irrational religious and cultural passions that a materialist philosophy cannot fathom or explain but only trivialize."

He goes on to say "A genuine leftist, in fact, should despise Islamic fundamentalism as superstitious nonsense, a species of "false consciousness" obscuring from people their true interests and historical destiny in the great Marxist opera of history. That's certainly how the American left looks upon our own Christian "fundamentalists": as throwbacks to a more primitive time who are trying to impede the inevitable progress of history."

Apparently though, he doesn't feel quite happy about equating Christian fundamentalists with Islamic fundamentalists, for he goes on to say:

"...Arab religious fanatics, a 1000-times more virulent and murderous than any Christian fundamentalist..."

Of course, if you liked the article linked to by EtherZev, I heartily recommend the author's other articles on the same site: "The Mental Pathologies of the Anti-Israel Left", "The Symbionese Terror and the Academic Left" or "A Leftist Bestiary". Does this guy have a grudge or what? Europeans might like his "Europe: Axis of Arrogance", civil libertarians are encouraged to read "The ACLU’s Civil Liberties Fundamentalism".

Thank you Dogster. Precisely my point. This guy doesn't have "a grudge" so much as a conservative viewpoint. In truly free societies all views are valid. Opinion is choice.


Gif,

Me? Get mad? Nah!

Geopolitical Shifts. My view.

“The Versailles Treaty 28th June, 1919.
ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the
late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States
which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not
yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of
the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the
well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of
civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust
should be embodied in this Covenant…...”

In other words self-determination is the governing principle for Global Peace.

Should there be a State of Israel? There are no hard and fast rules concerning who “deserves” a state. If you have a state and can hold a state militarily and diplomatically, then you’re in business. In reality there is neither de jure nor de facto standards in international relations stating who “deserves” statehood, and it certainly isn’t a unilateral decision that is within the UN’s Mandate either. Separatist demands from groups occur in Chechnya, Northern Ireland, Moldova, Georgia, then there are the Kurds, and the Berbers. Both the Corsicans and the Basques are fighting for separation.

The present geopolitical borders and boundaries of Europe and Asia, for the most part, have only been in existence for the last century. But ask Spain or France to grant independence to the Basques or Corsicans and the standard response will be dictums such as “ not in the national interest” or “regional stability”. Well Israel too has national interests and is very committed to regional stability.

Another Arab state (Jordan was supposed to be THE Arab State in Palestine) on the original mandated lands would make Israel’s borders indefensible, and that would be an ongoing and very real threat to regional stability. The original agreement was a homeland to safeguard the Jewish people from the European and Russian pogroms that were occurring with increasing frequency since the original and very immoral dispossession by the Romans, and the pursuant fourteen centuries of exclusion by Muslim rule.

My view is that Israel should hold the international community to its original commitment as stated in the Versailles Treaty, to a homeland free of the depredations and interference from both sides of the Mediterranean. No dhimmitude under Muslim hegemony. No interference from Western Nations. And a blanket recognition from all nations that Jews have a right to exist and Israel the right to exist as a free state within defensible borders.

East Timor just elected her first President. Would you honestly say that this state should not exist?

If you’re wondering about dhimmitude.
http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/dhimma.html

Hi Theanthrope,

Thanks, I finally get to put my money where my mouth is and make a pro-Israeli argument!

Britain has no written constitution or Bill of Rights. Does that make Britain undemocratic? In the last 12 months alone, people have had almost all the rights your article cited denied in Britain - freedom of assembly (peaceful anti-Globalisation protestors held in Oxford Circus for 8 hours), free speech (press gagging orders), etc. Britain is officially Christian, and Christian beliefs are the only beliefs protected under UK law. Virtually 100% of Councillors, MPs, Lords and Ministers are Christian. Economic migrants from South Africa or Australia are welcomed, whereas refugees from Albania or Afghanistan are imprisoned.

To say nothing of the fact that these 'rights' simply don't exist in the Arab nations surrounding Israel. In several, political candidates are not allowed, no matter what political beliefs they espouse. They are all very definitely Muslim nations. Non-Muslims are not even allowed into parts of Saudi Arabia (around Mecca and Medina). Most of them routinely use police torture, and without the justification of terrorist attacks.

In cases where a system is demonstrably unjust, and where the majority of the civilian population oppose it, passive resistance (a la Nelson Mandela or Ghandi) has been proved effective - why do Israeli Arabs/Palestinians not see this as an alternative?

The simple multiplying up of casualties may be meaningless, but it can give an indication of the fear felt on both sides. To extend the metaphor in your article, what if Mexico were to attack the US, demanding the return of land taken after the Mexican Revolution? What if Mexican suicide bombers killed tens and hundreds of people per year? How many Americans would then support laws confining Mexicans?

Gif

Right, switching sides:

Hi EtherZev,

That would be the same Versailles treaty that lead pretty much directly to the Depression and therefore to the rise of extremism in Europe? The same Versailles Treaty that is widely regarded as one of the greatest political disasters of the 20th Century? (More on this at the bottom as it involves long, boring quotes)

Spain and France have both been around for a lot longer than a century. Germany and Italy are more modern, but then again they don't have any seperatist movements [bracing myself for angry retorts from the Bavarian Peoples Front or something]. Northern Ireland has (touch wood) failed to become as bloody a conflict as Israel largely because the British government has not taken extreme measures. Internment coincided with the worst of the violence and only exacerbated it.

"No dhimmitude under Muslim hegemony. No interference from Western Nations." - by your referenced definition, dhimmitude is the Arab equivalent of the un-named Christian attitude during the Crusades. It hardly seems fair to cite opinions from 800 years ago to support your views today. (I note that Osama bin Laden compared American foreign policy to the Crusades in his last video.) Presumably, 'interference by Western Nations' would include the billions of dollars per year that Israel gets from the USA?

"the right to exist as a free state within defensible borders." - a right that Israel did not feel the need to extend to Syria when annexing the fortified Golan Heights.

Back to Versailles:

"Israel should hold the international community to its original commitment as stated in the Versailles Treaty, to a homeland ..." so Israelis are entitled to a homeland but Palestinians aren't? One of the major flaws in the Treaty of Versailles was that everyone agreed to self-determination in principle, but no-one could ever get it to work in practice because so much land is disputed (i.e. people living there don't agree what state they should be in).

Article 22 of the Versailles Treaty continues:

"The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations", so it's talking about education. It later refers to Palestine and Arabia:

"Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone." - so supporting a Palestinian state. I have no doubt you will correct me if I am wrong, but I know of no provision in the Versailles Treaty for a Jewish State.

Gif

Just as strong opinions are a sign of a weak mind, the ability to argue both sides is a sign of a powerful mind. However, he who takes the middle way will both lose the battle and retain his enemy.

Thank you, Giford

So what if you can argue both sides but still have a strong opinion, choosing side???

A weak mind....?......Hmmmmm.....





Tmershi duween.

I've always been a big fan of the middle way.

Though I'm not a Buddhist.

Or a Lib Dem.

Gif

"My view is that Israel should hold the international community to its original commitment as stated in the Versailles Treaty, to a homeland free of the depredations and interference from both sides of the Mediterranean. No dhimmitude under Muslim hegemony. No interference from Western Nations. And a blanket recognition from all nations that Jews have a right to exist and Israel the right to exist as a free state within defensible borders."

I agree. And those borders should be those that the UN gave Israel when it was founded. And Israel can do unto other nations as it would be done by.

I agree that 'no interference' should include not sending Israel my money to kill Palestinians with. Those pictures in the newspapers of Palestinian boys with rocks facing down Israeli soldiers armed with high-tech American military technology break my heart.

"I agree. And those borders should be those that the UN gave Israel when it was founded. And Israel can do unto other nations as it would be done by."

But does that mean that Israel can provoke viloence and return with "forign funded" military and and claim "And Israel can do unto other nations as it would be done by."

As to that article - NZ doesn't have a constitution but a bunch of acts and bills in it place and I'd challenge anyone to deny it's a democracy.

Also funny in that article were in it's first paragraphs stating what-if's about America eg,

"on top of still other laws providing for the detention of such suspects for long periods of time without trial or even a formal charge against them."

Dissagree if you want but after the WTC bombings weren't people being helf without charge "on suspicion" for looking slight arabic? I read a BBC article not long ago where a local judge in brittland ordered the release of a pilot the America was having the brittsh government hold "on suspicion"

When America oficialy speaks of Israel and what is hapening, would anyone who's been paying attention not see the bias and predicable slant?

Well certainly when the Bush administration condones Israel's actions and continues to send money, it's trying to win back the Florida Jews it alienated during the whole 2000 vote debacle. I agree that's predictable

Hi Apparition,

You're thinking of Lotfi Raissi:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/england/newsid_1815000/1815903.stm

"The United States has abandoned efforts to extradite Lotfi Raissi from Britain on terrorist charges but insists he is still a suspect." - 12/2/02

Raissi was arrested less than a week after Sept 11 and charged with training the pilots. These charges were later dropped and he was released on bail regarding some irregularities in his pilot's license and visa applications (failure to mention an old criminal conviction - theft in 1993). There's a copy of the extradition charges at http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/usraissi112701ind.pdf

He wasn't held without charge, though there wasn't much actual evidence against him. Not sure what happened in the end.

Gif

Nope that doesn't look like the news item I read (I could be wrong)

I'll have a look for the one I read.

I think this was the news item I read

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/england/newsid_1949000/1949435.stm

"But when no terrorist charges were brought against him after five months in jail, he was freed on bail." From the above link

Hi Apparition,

That's the same story, unless there are 2 Lotfi Raissis wandering around!

Some of the confusion here is because he was wanted for terrorism in both the UK and USA, so the quote you gave above refers to the UK government - the USA did try to extradite him on terrorism charges, and he couldn't be released until that extradition hearing was over (I think).

There's a difference between being held without charge, which he wasn't, and being charged with a crime without any evidence, which it appears he was. You can't hold someone for more than 24 hours without charging them or getting a court order for every extra 12 hours in the UK. But once you've charged them, it can take months to come to trial - not exactly fair, I admit. He may be entitled to sue for false imprisonment.

He was charged by the UK, but not with terrorist offences. The police held him on the falsifying-documents charges while they looked for evidence he trained the Sept 11 pilots. They didn't find any, so he got out on bail, pending the minor charges.

If you want a good example of people being held without charge in the UK, you should be looking at the Internment policy Britian had for a few years during the 1970s to combat the IRA. It backfired badly, and probably did more to boost IRA membership than any other event other than Bloody Sunday. You're unlikely to see a similar policy in the near future.

Gif

I see what you're saying but

"If you want a good example of people being held without charge in the UK"

Actually that was not my point. The point of my origional post is how America treated Arabs after September 11 as, among others, was shown by a US TV news show.

I perhaps used a bad example.