I take it you got beat this time.

How long have you been here anyways?

I beg to differ mr Anas. G

Define “civilian” and “terrorism”.

Rape, for instance, is an act of terrorism, as is describing non-muslim women as uncovered meat who “deserve” it

Correct.That’s why whenever you accuse some group or organisation of terrorist actions it’s important you back it up with evidence from as many objective sources as you can, and here I mean human rights organisations, UN resolutions, international law rulings, etc

These are no longer objective groups.

Were any of these groups “objective” they’d be denouncing the Muslim on Muslim atrocities that occur on a daily basis and that kill thousands of innocents

I hope so. Muslims and Jews have lived together peacefully in that part of the world for hundreds of years

Tell that to the Jews of Hebron who were brutally massacred or chased from their homes in 1929…..long before Israel existed.

In fact, tell it to mahammed who murdered or enslaved the Jewish community of Medina.

However the priority now is to make sure that the Palestinians are able to realise their moral and legal right to self-determination.

If they could just summon the organisational skills to pay grade-school teachers when their salaries are due I,d be happy!

……humanitarian disaster in Gaza now……

Anyone know if the Saudis have even contributed a few cents to the alleviation of this “disaster”?

When you’ve nothing to offer the world, when you’re berift of any redeeming qualities as a culture, when your intellectuals and pols are so stupid, so incompetant and so corrupt as to be unable to motivate societies to move forward and grow, then you’re only option is to create, to stoke and then to rally ’round a “victim” case in order to keep the heat off.

A solution to the Palestinian probleme would quickly lead to an implosion of radical Islam because the Palestinian “probleme” is simply all that’s left to prop it up……

Pretty much every prominent mainstream Muslim figure has actively condemmed terrorism by Muslims, especially in regard to 9/11 and 7/7. Check this link out:
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

According to the 1990 Trust poll “only 1.9% of [UK] Muslims believe that it is justifiable to commit acts of terrorism against civilians in the UK. An overwhelming majority – 96% stated emphatically that acts of terrorism against civilians was unjustifiable”. Additionally, there have been countless fatwas by Muslim scholars across the globe denouncing Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and any acts of terrorism that target civilians.

And yes, I did mention that petition in my Melanie Philips blog piece, but as you say it was not the mainstream British Jewish position.

that’s called realpolitik – and if you think the same yardstick isn’t applied in the muslim world, you’re not looking. fine – if “terrorism” is the most evil thing nowadays, then tag anything the israelis do as “terrorism”. before then, you could tag it as “imperialism”, or “racism”, or “apartheid”, or “aggressive” – that’s straight out of the soviet playbook. anything done by soviet allies is characterised as “defensive”. the net effect is to remove the meaning of the word “terrorism”, the same thing that has happened in israeli politics with the word “nazi”, because it is just used as a cheap insult.

Correct.That’s why whenever you accuse some group or organisation of terrorist actions it’s important you back it up with evidence from as many objective sources as you can, and here I mean human rights organisations, UN resolutions, international law rulings, etc. So that therefore when I accuse Israel of terrorism in my article I base my accusation on reports from human rights agencies and other reasonably objective source.

So for example, when you look at the Lebanese conflict, a lot of Western commentators would agree that Hezbollah are terrorists (I’m assuming you would too Banana), whereas they wouldn’t make the same claim about Israel, or the IDF. But as Gideon Levy points out in Haaretz:

[T]he number of people Israel killed is not only almost 10 times higher than the number of people Hezbollah killed, but the number of soldiers Hezbollah killed is three times higher than the number of Israeli civilians they killed, while the number of Lebanese civilians killed by Israel is about three times the number of Hezbollah fighters. So whose arms are purer?

At the end of the day, we cannot, as a society, go around accusing other countries or organisations of aiding or commiting acts of terrorism while doing the exact same thing ourselves (something which Britain did during the Lebanese war, and which through its silence it is doing with regard to the humanitarian disaster in Gaza now). Maybe we could in the past, but those days are rapidly leaving us.

Personally, I don’t care what the British Jewish community thinks about Israel or the media’s portrayal of the views of those in the Jewish community, I only find it interesting insofar as it contrasts with the media’s portrayal of the British Muslim community. So for example, I don’t think any mainstream Muslim commentator could get away with claiming that the murder of hundreds of civilians (mainly women and children) was justified in the name of the Ummah — he’d be denounced as an anti-Western savage and extremist– so why is it OK when it’s in the name of Israel?

have a question for you, anas – in the two-state solution you presumably envisage, will jews be allowed to live in the palestinian state?

I hope so. Muslims and Jews have lived together peacefully in that part of the world for hundreds of years. However the priority now is to make sure that the Palestinians are able to realise their moral and legal right to self-determination.

People keeep assigning me a “side” when the side I’m on has remained roughly the same for many years.

Ditto for Melanie Phillips, by the way.

Ditto for the Bishop of Rochester, as well.

It’s a hoot that “people such as myself” ( what does THAT mean?) APPEAR to change sides if only because the official reps of the “side” I’m on are no longer on my “side”.

There was a time when left-wing Jews such as Melanie and left-wing Catholics such as myself knew what “left” stood for. That “left” was a set of principles that transcended race and religious affiliation; it was a set of principles that could battle the far-right and the ubber conservative theocrats ( who were once composed only of Christians) and which adhered to FULL equality for all men and women.

As a result, those of us who stayed true to leftist principles now APPEAR rightist.

Those who claim to be on the left now endorse theocrats, the subjegation of women and inequality for gays.

The probleme for most here lies in recognising that the far-right of yesteryear has been replaced with another far-right; one that is neither Christian nor western, and that switch-over has a lot of people confused.

Rather than having the guts to entertain the notion that “brown” can be as fascist as “white”, or that “non-christian” can be as fascist as “christian” they prefer to embark into a series of *phobia-accusations* of one sort or another; a reflex born of laziness and a complete inability, or at least unwillingness, to think things through.

Hence the label “Mad-Mel”; reasoned ideas and arguments of the kind that require basic brain power are now classed as mad.

“I cannot understand your ideas, therefore you are mad”.

Annas’ text immediately above is exhibit “A”

http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=1868

incidentally, however, you will be able to divine that despite his middle-of-the-roadness, he is unflinching in his support for israel as a state and a concept – if clearly not for everything their government and army get up to, now or previously. the sort of ignorant yahoos running round the west bank who think it’s big and clever to take the book of joshua literally as a guide to modern politics, unlike rabbi sacks, clearly haven’t read the last sentence in the book of judges.

those who presume to be authorities on the relationship between Islam and terrorism, but who are completely (and wilfully) misinformed about Islam and how its core texts are usually interpreted. These authorities also seem to regard the interpretations of extremists and militants as the most faithful interpretations of the texts.

and in that group you should not seek to include me. or katy for that matter!

it is interesting in general to examine how easily prominent members of the British Jewish community can get away with justifying or apologising for brutal acts of terrorism, at least in comparison with the Muslim community

oh, really. well, let’s see how many prominent members of the british jewish community have stood up and condemned recent israeli actions:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5154838.stm

ooh, look at that. now, admittedly, the organisation that organised that (two of whose leading members i know pretty well) are not regarded as mainstream, but the signatories are pretty bloody prominent. in fact, they represent a vast section of the sort of people that are always held up as great examples of jews-who-have-succeeded-by-avoiding-being-religious. and what about george soros? prominent enough for you?

now, let’s see how many “prominent members of the muslim community” have got up and condemned muslim-on-muslim violence, or even, heaven forbid, violence perpetrated by muslims on non-muslims? do me a fecking favour. nobody seems prepared to break omertá on that, do they? apparently, the only thing they’re interested in is muslims as victims – unless of course they’re victims of other muslims, in which case the ultimate fault is always someone else – the “west”, or the us, or the zionist bogeyman, or whoever.

in fact, i’d go so far to say that if you’re not a victim, these days, you’re an oppressor. so everyone’s falling over themselves to become victims. it would be laughable if it wasn’t so disgusting.

I just think some kinds of terrorism are more acceptable because they are perceived as being beneficial to Western interests.
that’s called realpolitik – and if you think the same yardstick isn’t applied in the muslim world, you’re not looking. fine – if “terrorism” is the most evil thing nowadays, then tag anything the israelis do as “terrorism”. before then, you could tag it as “imperialism”, or “racism”, or “apartheid”, or “aggressive” – that’s straight out of the soviet playbook. anything done by soviet allies is characterised as “defensive”. the net effect is to remove the meaning of the word “terrorism”, the same thing that has happened in israeli politics with the word “nazi”, because it is just used as a cheap insult.

i have a question for you, anas – in the two-state solution you presumably envisage, will jews be allowed to live in the palestinian state? or will they be described as “settlers” and fair game?

b’shalom

bananabrain

I agree I have no “concept, whatsoever, of how jewish law works, or of what its relationship to the actions of the israeli government.” That was kind of the point of my comment: you’ve got to remember I was talking to Amir. I do understand that many orthodox mainstream Jews such as Jonathan Sacks (I don’t know how mainstream he is) reject these extremist interpretations of the torah — and who am I to argue with them.

However, on a separate and not unrelated issue it is interesting in general to examine how easily prominent members of the British Jewish community can get away with justifying or apologising for brutal acts of terrorism, at least in comparison with the Muslim community(if you want more details then I’ve commented on this in my Melanie Philips blog entry). And no, to pre-empt the accusation, I don’t think there’s some great Zionist/Jewish conspiracy behind this. I just think some kinds of terrorism are more acceptable because they are perceived as being beneficial to Western interests.

and anas, you really have lost the plot this time. a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. you clearly know crap-all about judaism, yet you seem to wish to hold yourself out as an expert on how all the evil stuff you go on about the israelis doing is inspired by the bible, or that stupid settler woman from the fundamentalists programme (she would be right at home in pizza HuT, they’re all alike, these born-again nincompoops) – let me tell you, i know far better than you where melanie phillips goes to synagogue, because i have up till recently been a member there myself . it’s a far more religiously-left-wing synagogue than you’d expect. far from sharing her political views, the rabbi is a famously inspirational, saintly, ecumenically minded and compassionate interfaith activist and the congregational mindset is notoriously intellectually rigorous and modern-minded whilst maintaining a robust attitude to religious law. you, by contrast, have absolutely no concept, whatsoever, of how jewish law works, or of what its relationship to the actions of the israeli government and argument may or may not be. you’re just slinging mud. now do us all a favour and pull your head out from where it is right now because frankly it’s making your breath smell bad.

b’shalom

bananabrain

How about the word terrorist? Seems to me, people such as yourself complain about the use of lanbguage to shut down debate when it applies to yourself, but are happy to confer labels on “the other side” quite easily. Yours and Amir’s position would be much more credible if you applies those labels consistently.

I’d even take issue with the term “extremist”. It is employed to hide and dissimulate rather than to enlighten.

On this side of the pond, you’ve no idea how hilarious it is to listen to frightened Europeans invent euphemism after euphemism ( “youths”, “extremeists” etc) to describe a group of people who have a VERY definate name and identitiy and who invoke both all the time.

At some point the absurdity of dismissing the views of an increasing number of intelligent and thoughtful reformers as “islamophobic” will become obvious.

Anyone these days who is up to speed must necessarily be calssed as “bigot”, as “misinformed”, as “hate-monger”.

Sorry, been reading Spike Millligan’s war memoirs: “Lt. Joe Mostyn. This photo was circulated to all members of the Battery with a warning not to lend money”

Nick – That’s an interesting point, and one I look forward to seeing our Scottish cabinet deal with.

Errr, Katy read the article I linked to on my blog. By acting as an apologist for terrorist actions such as those of the Israeli army that clearly targeted civilians (as per the findings of at least two high profile human rights organisations), she is ipso facto condoning the targeting of civilians. Just as I would be condoning targeting civilians if I claimed that Hamas’ actions were always justified.

WTF? Honestly, Anas, sometimes you just lose the plot completely. What are you saying, that all religious Jews approve of the targeting of innocent civilians? How many religious Jews do you actually know? How do you know what does or does not influence them? As a Muslim I would have thought you would understand how it feels to have people who know nothing about your holy texts throw out of context portions back in your face as proof of what religious Muslims feel, think, believe or condone.

LOL, that was my point exactly, Katy. BTW, there are religious Jews who believe that murderous Israeli actions can be justifed by the bible (just as there are Muslims who believe terrorism can be justifed by reference to the Quran). One was interviewed on the channel 4 documentary the Fundamentalists a few weeks back.

Re demographics and the UK I think the current problem is more about the broader “social experiment” taking place by a bunch of Scots to whom London has always been a foriegn city, so who cares how much more foreign it becomes? But I grew up here and actually resent the rapid loss of its character and identity, regardless of what colour it happens to be.