George Galloway/Israel/Palestine

[DTA]

In the wiki article, if you scroll down to the parts about the 17th and 18th century there are some examples, all of course pre-WW1.

Another quote (from the article this time, not from that historian) seems to sum it up pretty well: "The status of Jewry in the Ottoman Empire often hinged on the whims of the Sultan. So, for example, while Murad III ordered that the attitude of all non-Muslims should be one of "humility and abjection" and should not "live near Mosques or tall buildings" or own slaves, others were more tolerant.[2]" I think this is the case for most empires (at least those that last a while).



Why do they think the land belongs to them? Why was Israel placed where it was?

Is it not a fairly central belief in Judaism that the holy land was given to them by GHod? Has this not been at least one of the causes for breakdown in peace talks and two-state solution talks? Is this not a belief that at the very least influences the expansionism shown by Israel? An expansionism that is a big part of why this situation seems so locked (at least imo).

It's obviously an oversimplification to blame all conflicts between various religious groups exclusively on religion. But can it possible be right to say that religion is not even one of several causes in this of all cases?

And even in cases where the religious influence is not as clear cut as it is here, even when it might be only "a tool" for those wishing for more power and control it's still at least somewhat to blame as it's a very useful and effective tool. The evolution of just about any conflict can always be said to be more complex, but when the religious aspect of a conflict evolves as a part of that conflict I don't think you can separate that from the dispute itself, at least not entirely. The religious part of the conflict evolves as a part of the conflict, often intensifying it, often developing into a crucial part of the dispute, often fueling the fire and causing atrocities that makes disputes worse. To quote Christopher Hitchens (a man who absolutely destroyed Galloway in a debate imo). "The suicide-bombing community is not absolutely 100 percent religious, but it is pretty nearly 100 percent religious." If this was the only thing religion had contributed in this conflict it would be enough to considered one of many causes behind the seemingly Gordian nature of the situation, it's far from the only thing though.

This is an empire that spanned centuries, and the author picks out localised occurances that are not top down decrees apart from the 'living in tall buildings etc' which applied to all non Muslims and never specifically Jewish people. 1. This pales in significants to the level of hatred and discrimination faced by most minorities, but specifically Jewish people in the west at that time (doesn't mean its right, because its not. But the historical context is important) 2. It is arguable that the way black and other non 'powerful' minorities have been treated by the united states even in the last century (and possibly still today) is worse than anything that ottomans did to any of their minorities pre ww1, (does that mean the Ottomans were perfect... Far from it). 3.top down decrees to the best of my knowledge never targeted the Jewish people of the ottoman empire, in fact Jewish people were given a level of societal autonomy under the milliet system that was only surpaced when Israel was founded. At a time in Europe and Russia when they lived in times of severe and often deadly persecution. 4. Jewish people and other non Muslim minorities rose to the top echelons of the ottoman empire, again unheard of at that time.

Now this is beginning to sound like I am banging the drum for the ottoman empire... I'm not, all I'm trying to show that is that jewish people lived with muslims for centuries and prospered, were given freedom of religion and autonomy that were unheard of that time (I keep saying of that time because it is key here). And therefore if there was any religion or cultural reason for Muslims not to live side by side that would have been exposed, it wasn't and there isn't.

 

[DTA]

But why do they think the land belongs to them?

Not all religious jewish people do. Some object to Israels foundation on religious grounds.

For what its worth I totally agree with jewish peoples right to a homeland, how can anybody not?

Israel has been founded and deserves to exist in peace and prosperity, as does Palestine. To say anymore on this though is getting into the debate about the conflict and its rights and wrongs and I refuse to do that.. All I will say is that it is a extremely sad situation on both sides.

 

[DTA]

That fact they're Muslims and Jews is not the cause of the dispute. It's two different peoples who think the land belongs to them, as in Northern Ireland with Catholics and Protestants. It is not essentially a religious issue, but when it becomes a dispute, both sides tend to define themselves by whatever differentiates themselves from their enemy, and become ever more extreme in their views.

In the old days it was easier. One side would just completely annihilate the other or just push them into a reservation and there'd be no dispute, such as the European conquest of North America or Anglo-Saxon conquest of what became England. Wales is just one large reservation for displaced Britons.

Very good post, and fine example.

 

[Bonsaiboy]

But why do they think the land belongs to them?

Because they look back in history and interpret it thus. Napoleon said "History is a mutually agreed upon fable." But not everyone agrees upon the fable. A White American living in Colorado may think he lives in America, a country founded by Christian fanatics by the will of GHod, with no history before the Mayflower. But a Sioux Indian thinks Colorado is just a small part of the Great Plains that belonged to them for thousands of years before the White Man came to America. It's not even America to them, it's Turtle Island, a place that the Great Spirit gave to them to hunt buffalo, and then the White Man came and found Yellow Metal and decided they wanted it and broke every treaty they ever signed to get it. But they're reconciled to it now and just stay on the reservation and get drunk, reminiscing about the Little Big Horn.

The Palestinians are not reconciled yet, and it's quite hard to become so when the bits of land you have been given are continually being encroached upon.

I'm not really on one side or the other. But I think Israel has been getting away with a lot because of what's happened in the past.

 

[braineclipse]

This is an empire that spanned centuries, and the author picks out localised occurances that are not top down decrees apart from the 'living in tall buildings etc' which applied to all non Muslims and never specifically Jewish people. 1. This pales in significants to the level of hatred and discrimination faced by most minorities, but specifically Jewish people in the west at that time (doesn't mean its right, because its not. But the historical context is important) 2. It is arguable that the way black and other non 'powerful' minorities have been treated by the united states even in the last century (and possibly still today) is worse than anything that ottomans did to any of their minorities pre ww1, (does that mean the Ottomans were perfect... Far from it). 3.top down decrees to the best of my knowledge never targeted the Jewish people of the ottoman empire, in fact Jewish people were given a level of societal autonomy under the milliet system that was only surpaced when Israel was founded. At a time in Europe and Russia when they lived in times of severe and often deadly persecution. 4. Jewish people and other non Muslim minorities rose to the top echelons of the ottoman empire, again unheard of at that time.

Now this is beginning to sound like I am banging the drum for the ottoman empire... I'm not, all I'm trying to show that is that jewish people lived with muslims for centuries and prospered, were given freedom of religion and autonomy that were unheard of that time (I keep saying of that time because it is key here). And therefore if there was any religion or cultural reason for Muslims not to live side by side that would have been exposed, it wasn't and there isn't.

Are there similarly no cultural or religious reasons why Sunni and Shia Muslims cannot live side by side (in peace and harmony)? What other instances would this kind of a statement be appropriate for (genuinely curious here, not trying to ridicule through absurd expansions of your viewpoint). Can your argument be extended to all religions? After all I'm sure I could find some instances of religions coexisting within nations to a similar extent to what I've seen described here in the Ottoman empire. Can this logic be extended to political viewpoints too?

To reiterate my viewpoint: Just because some Muslims coexisted (relatively) peacefully with some Jews in some countries doesn't mean that there are no cultural or religious reasons why they can't peacefully coexist. What it means is that some can, under some circumstances. I just don't see how you get logically from your one example to a broader conclusion. What I agree on is that it's possible, but I would say it seems at least likely that when this is possible despite the religious tension.

Because they look back in history and interpret it thus. Napoleon said "History is a mutually agreed upon fable." But not everyone agrees upon the fable. A White American living in Colorado may think he lives in America, a country founded by Christian fanatics by the will of GHod, with no history before the Mayflower. But a Sioux Indian thinks Colorado is just a small part of the Great Plains that belonged to them for thousands of years before the White Man came to America. It's not even America to them, it's Turtle Island, a place that the Great Spirit gave to them to hunt buffalo, and then the White Man came and found Yellow Metal and decided they wanted it and broke every treaty they ever signed to get it. But they're reconciled to it now and just stay on the reservation and get drunk, reminiscing about the Little Big Horn.

The Palestinians are not reconciled yet, and it's quite hard to become so when the bits of land you have been given are continually being encroached upon.

I'm not really on one side or the other. But I think Israel has been getting away with a lot because of what's happened in the past.

Not a single word on Israel, Palestine, Jews or Muslims? Analogies are sometimes good, but to argue entirely based on a far from perfect comparison is not a solid argument. One where religion was used at least as a justification for outright atrocities is particularly unsuited.

Why is what you say important (historic interpretation) in the Israel situation relevant and the religious causes irrelevant? Why is the faith in the supposed word of GHod allegedly giving a particular piece of land to a particular religious group not important here? You've offered no reasoning or argument for your statement.

 

[DTA]

Are there similarly no cultural or religious reasons why Sunni and Shia Muslims cannot live side by side (in peace and harmony)? What other instances would this kind of a statement be appropriate for (genuinely curious here, not trying to ridicule through absurd expansions of your viewpoint). Can your argument be extended to all religions? After all I'm sure I could find some instances of religions coexisting within nations to a similar extent to what I've seen described here in the Ottoman empire. Can this logic be extended to political viewpoints too?

To reiterate my viewpoint: Just because some Muslims coexisted (relatively) peacefully with some Jews in some countries doesn't mean that there are no cultural or religious reasons why they can't peacefully coexist. What it means is that some can, under some circumstances. I just don't see how you get logically from your one example to a broader conclusion. What I agree on is that it's possible, but I would say it seems at least likely that when this is possible despite the religious tension.



Not a single word on Israel, Palestine, Jews or Muslims? Analogies are sometimes good, but to argue entirely based on a far from perfect comparison is not a solid argument. One where religion was used at least as a justification for outright atrocities is particularly unsuited.

Why is what you say important (historic interpretation) in the Israel situation relevant and the religious causes irrelevant? Why is the faith in the supposed word of GHod allegedly giving a particular piece of land to a particular religious group not important here? You've offered no reasoning or argument for your statement.

I am really confused as to your point? Are you saying that Muslims and Jewish people didn't co exist peacefully in the past? Are you saying, that Muslims and jewish people can't exist peacefully because of their religion?

If so I would say you are wrong on both counts, I think the example I gave proves that peaceful coexistence is very much possible and very much happened, bar the incidence that were listed in the wiki article which are a handful and spanned centuries and could be down to mass immigration which has always and continues to foster ignorant and intolerant attitudes (world wide) rather than religion. Crucially there was no top down or wider societal discrimination against the Jewish population of the Ottoman empire who (as previously stated) enjoyed a level of autonomy (the milliet system) that they never had until the foundation of israel itself, I would very interested if you can find similar examples within the west and that time period and without force or cohersion of that.

As for sunni and shia... I know there was at least one rebellion put down very brutally by the ottoman empire... But this was a) a rebellion b) a different time in history, and should be judged within the context of that time frame and the occurances world wide at that time... That's not to say it was in any way right, as by all accounts the ottomans reaction was brutal.

If you are talking about the sunni and shia today, I'm no Islamic scholar but the violence you see today is more to with the fostering of secular tensions instigated by the British and other western occupiers of the region around a century ago (classic divide and rule) this happened in Cyprus India irland and just about any other place that this policy was put into practice... Now you may say that its 100 years ago get over it... But once formented and cultivated these divisions stay, partly because it suits the people on the ground that want to carve out their own sphere of influence and partly because it suits the big powers even to this day.

 

[JerusalemMan]

It was nice of the Israeli ambassador to visit Bradford the other day.

I have massively enjoyed this thread.
I would be very interested to read thoughts on the following article which I found to be remarkably eager to not jump on one side and handily sourced a fair few things as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/picking-a-side-in-israel-palestine_b_5602701.html

It's not without flaws but, I have enjoyed using it to smackdown a few diatribes of late.

 

[Yossarian]

It was nice of the Israeli ambassador to visit Bradford the other day.

I have massively enjoyed this thread.
I would be very interested to read thoughts on the following article which I found to be remarkably eager to not jump on one side and handily sourced a fair few things as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/picking-a-side-in-israel-palestine_b_5602701.html

It's not without flaws but, I have enjoyed using it to smackdown a few diatribes of late.

Excellent stuff!

 

[DTA]

It was nice of the Israeli ambassador to visit Bradford the other day.

I have massively enjoyed this thread.
I would be very interested to read thoughts on the following article which I found to be remarkably eager to not jump on one side and handily sourced a fair few things as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/picking-a-side-in-israel-palestine_b_5602701.html

It's not without flaws but, I have enjoyed using it to smackdown a few diatribes of late.

I like the author have been accused by both sides of showing bias... And have lost friends because of this ;(

It is why I no longer participate in this debate. But I will give two rebuttal points to his article... Him framing it as a religious conflict is extremely selective... Re his text selection, it would be equally valid and within the same texts to find why Muslims and jewish people should live in harmony... I can quote them if you want.

Comparing Israel to Assad, I would hope that Israel would compare itself to higher standard then the lowest of the low, so his comparison is flawed on many levels, and does Israel no favours.

 

[JerusalemMan]

I like the author have been accused by both sides of showing bias... And have lost friends because of this ;(

It is why I no longer participate in this debate. But I will give two rebuttal points to his article... Him framing it as a religious conflict is extremely selective... Re his text selection, it would be equally valid and within the same texts to find why Muslims and jewish people should live in harmony... I can quote them if you want.

Comparing Israel to Assad, I would hope that Israel would compare itself to higher standard then the lowest of the low, so his comparison is flawed on many levels, and does Israel no favours.

Partly this bit?

"What about the numerous verses and hadith quoted in Hamas' charter? And the famous hadith of the Gharqad tree explicitly commanding Muslims to kill Jews?
Please tell me -- in light of these passages written centuries and millennia before the creation of Israel or the occupation -- how can anyone conclude that religion isn't at the root of this, or at least a key driving factor? You may roll your eyes at these verses, but they are taken very seriously by many of the players in this conflict, on both sides. Shouldn't they be acknowledged and addressed? When is the last time you heard a good rational, secular argument supporting settlement expansion in the West Bank? "

Surely it is a religious conflict if the parties involved view it - at least in part - as such.
The author doesn't seem massively keen on religion himself.

 

[DTA]

Partly this bit?

"What about the numerous verses and hadith quoted in Hamas' charter? And the famous hadith of the Gharqad tree explicitly commanding Muslims to kill Jews?
Please tell me -- in light of these passages written centuries and millennia before the creation of Israel or the occupation -- how can anyone conclude that religion isn't at the root of this, or at least a key driving factor? You may roll your eyes at these verses, but they are taken very seriously by many of the players in this conflict, on both sides. Shouldn't they be acknowledged and addressed? When is the last time you heard a good rational, secular argument supporting settlement expansion in the West Bank? "

Surely it is a religious conflict if the parties involved view it - at least in part - as such.
The author doesn't seem massively keen on religion himself.

Yes but these are very selective parts of both texts, the Hadiths are actually not part of the Quran at all. And many hisidic (spelling) jewish do not believe in foundation of Israel on religious grounds. I'm not saying that mis representation of of text is not being used. I'm saying that within the frame work of both texts, despite what is reported, there is more to bring Muslim and jewish people together then rip them apart.

 

[NWND]

Just something I posted on Facebook


Haha Bradford is a ****ing **** hole anyway. Wouldn't go there if you paid me. Galloway is a complete prick.

Have you ever been to Bradford?

 

[NWND]

Parts of Bradford are ****holes, yes. But no worse than any other major city. Far better and safer in the roughest areas of Bradford than the rough areas in London, Leeds, Birmingham & Manchester.

Manningham, Toller, Little Horton, Barkerend, Bradford Moor and the bottom of Great Horton are quite run down and populated almost exclusively by immigrants or chavs, but Saltaire, Eccleshill, Undercliffe, Thornton, Queensbury, Clayton Heights, Horton Bank Top, Wibsey & Odsal are beautiful and the views from both banks of the city are spectacular.

The City Centre got ruined by series of bad decisions, but is now part of a huge urban regeneration project and Little Germany is a great place to live and work in the commerical centre.

I hate it when people bad mouth Bradford without knowing it.

Galloway is a complete prick, but he'll be gone at the next election. All of his "respect" party councillors resigned.

 

[JerusalemMan]

Parts of Bradford are ****holes, yes. But no worse than any other major city. Far better and safer in the roughest areas of Bradford than the rough areas in London, Leeds, Birmingham & Manchester.

Manningham, Toller, Little Horton, Barkerend, Bradford Moor and the bottom of Great Horton are quite run down and populated almost exclusively by immigrants or chavs, but Saltaire, Eccleshill, Undercliffe, Thornton, Queensbury, Clayton Heights, Horton Bank Top, Wibsey & Odsal are beautiful and the views from both banks of the city are spectacular.

The City Centre got ruined by series of bad decisions, but is now part of a huge urban regeneration project and Little Germany is a great place to live and work in the commerical centre.

I hate it when people bad mouth Bradford without knowing it.

Galloway is a complete prick, but he'll be gone at the next election. All of his "respect" party councillors resigned.

=D>=D>=D>