Why there won't be peace between Israel and the Palestinians

[LordKiran]

No. The oppressed have no power to move anything forward unless some higher power forces the oppressor to move.

That you side with the oppressor over the oppressed is troubling.

The Hamas charter supports the traditional Islamic position-- once the Muslims have stolen the land of non-Muslims (which their religion gives them the right to do) then the land belongs to the Muslims forever.

So it's not allowed that non-Muslims ever get back control of the land and free themselves from Islamic tyranny.

I guess you can always try to blame traditional Islamic teachings on relatively modern Zionism if you want...

Is that REALLY what you think this is?

 

[Vork]

Is that REALLY what you think this is?

Yes, I really think that jihad ideology is a major part of the hostility to Israel. Of course you can also--at the same time--have a secular Arab movement that hates Israel and wants to destroy it. Fatah started out as secular, but have apparently drifted more towards using jihad ideology also.



Hamas Covenant 1988

Article Eleven:

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?

This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.

It happened like this: When the leaders of the Islamic armies conquered Syria and Iraq, they sent to the Caliph of the Moslems, Umar bin-el-Khatab, asking for his advice concerning the conquered land - whether they should divide it among the soldiers, or leave it for its owners, or what? After consultations and discussions between the Caliph of the Moslems, Omar bin-el-Khatab and companions of the Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, it was decided that the land should be left with its owners who could benefit by its fruit. As for the real ownership of the land and the land itself, it should be consecrated for Moslem generations till Judgement Day. Those who are on the land, are there only to benefit from its fruit. This Waqf remains as long as earth and heaven remain. Any procedure in contradiction to Islamic Sharia, where Palestine is concerned, is null and void.

"Verily, this is a certain truth. Wherefore praise the name of thy Lord, the great Allah." (The Inevitable - verse 95).

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp



There are Muslim fundies today that still want Spain back, under that sort of principle. Quote:


Islamic State has issued its first ever video in Spanish, threatening more terrorist attacks and vowing to reconquer al-Andalus for the “caliphate”.

Al-Andalus was the name given to the Iberian peninsula when it was ruled by Muslims for five centuries until their defeat and expulsion in 1492.

In the recording a militant, speaking in Spanish with an Arabic accent, says: “Allah willing, al-Andalus will become again what it was, part of the caliphate....

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-re-coming-to-take-back-spain-isis-video-says-hpjhjrc9d



Are there Jewish fundies that think they have a divine right to Israel? Yes, but at least they aren't claiming the entire world!

 

[Vork]

I asked you this is that other thread:

Anyway, aside from the extra tax levied on non-muslims (which I agree was unfair), what exactly is your objection to the way things were before Zionism roiled the status quo in Palestine? People were free to worship openly, to own property, to participate in their government, to marry outside of their faith group, etc. There were no pogroms, no throwing rocks at schoolkids, no hostile takeovers of neighborhoods, no firebombing houses where people slept, no throat slitting in the middle of the night to terrorize a community. I can think of a few things they didn't have that would be good improvements, like having the right of free speech recognized as inalienable, but what exactly is your objection? Please be specific.

Free to marry outside of their faith group? That might perhaps be historically correct for the territory in question, but it sounds strange, as Muslim women often aren't supposed to marry outside of the religion.


Also, quoting Wikipedia:

The Tanzimât (Ottoman Turkish: تنظيمات, Tanẓīmāt), literally meaning reorganization of the Ottoman Empire, was a period of reformation that began in 1839 and ended with the First Constitutional Era in 1876.[1]

It was characterised by various attempts to modernise the Ottoman Empire and to secure its territorial integrity against internal nationalist movements and external aggressive powers. The reforms encouraged Ottomanism among the diverse ethnic groups of the Empire and attempted to stem the tide of nationalist movements within the Ottoman Empire.

The reforms sought to emancipate the empire's non-Muslim subjects and more thoroughly integrate non-Turks into Ottoman society by enhancing their civil liberties and granting them equality throughout the empire.

Many changes were made to improve civil liberties, but many Muslims saw them as foreign influence on the world of Islam. That perception complicated reformist efforts made by the state.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzimat



"The reforms sought to emancipate the empire's non-Muslim subjects"?

Why would that be needed if they were being treated fairly in the first place? It's also not clear how much credit to give the Ottoman Empire for such reforms, if they were basically Western standards taking over from Islamic standards, under pressure from the Western world?

 

[Vork]

According to this source, there appears to have been discrimination where Jewish testimony against Muslims normally wouldn't be accepted:


https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ScsUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA44#v=onepage&q&f=false

"The Jews of the Ottoman empire in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries: Administrative, economic, legal and social relations as reflected in the responsa" by Aryeh Shmuelevitz

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. The oppressed have no power to move anything forward unless some higher power forces the oppressor to move.

That you side with the oppressor over the oppressed is troubling.

The Hamas charter supports the traditional Islamic position-- once the Muslims have stolen the land of non-Muslims (which their religion gives them the right to do) then the land belongs to the Muslims forever.

So it's not allowed that non-Muslims ever get back control of the land and free themselves from Islamic tyranny.

I guess you can always try to blame traditional Islamic teachings on relatively modern Zionism if you want...

Is that REALLY what you think this is?

It's the heart of the conflict over Israel. They regarded it as conquered land and the creation of Israel was a rebellion against that conquest.

 

[Arctish]

I asked you this is that other thread:

Anyway, aside from the extra tax levied on non-muslims (which I agree was unfair), what exactly is your objection to the way things were before Zionism roiled the status quo in Palestine? People were free to worship openly, to own property, to participate in their government, to marry outside of their faith group, etc. There were no pogroms, no throwing rocks at schoolkids, no hostile takeovers of neighborhoods, no firebombing houses where people slept, no throat slitting in the middle of the night to terrorize a community. I can think of a few things they didn't have that would be good improvements, like having the right of free speech recognized as inalienable, but what exactly is your objection? Please be specific.

Free to marry outside of their faith group? That might perhaps be historically correct for the territory in question, but it sounds strange, as Muslim women often aren't supposed to marry outside of the religion.


Also, quoting Wikipedia:

The Tanzimât (Ottoman Turkish: تنظيمات, Tanẓīmāt), literally meaning reorganization of the Ottoman Empire, was a period of reformation that began in 1839 and ended with the First Constitutional Era in 1876.[1]

It was characterised by various attempts to modernise the Ottoman Empire and to secure its territorial integrity against internal nationalist movements and external aggressive powers. The reforms encouraged Ottomanism among the diverse ethnic groups of the Empire and attempted to stem the tide of nationalist movements within the Ottoman Empire.

The reforms sought to emancipate the empire's non-Muslim subjects and more thoroughly integrate non-Turks into Ottoman society by enhancing their civil liberties and granting them equality throughout the empire.

Many changes were made to improve civil liberties, but many Muslims saw them as foreign influence on the world of Islam. That perception complicated reformist efforts made by the state.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzimat



"The reforms sought to emancipate the empire's non-Muslim subjects"?

Why would that be needed if they were being treated fairly in the first place? It's also not clear how much credit to give the Ottoman Empire for such reforms, if they were basically Western standards taking over from Islamic standards, under pressure from the Western world?

Under the old millet system, the various ethnic/religious/national groups governed their own communities according to their own religious laws and traditions, answerable to a single authority figure who was himself answerable to the Sultan. Jews, Christians, Druze, Zoroastrians, Yazidis, etc. were free to practice their religion and follow their traditional laws, even the laws that allowed them to treat others as inferiors. The reforms of the 19th century addressed the obvious flaw in that plan - as the Empire modernized and communities had greater contact with each other, the bigots and chauvinists were becoming an obstacle to peace and progress.

The reforms were intended to transform the pluralistic, non-industrial Ottoman society into a modern, pluralistic and egalitarian one. They could very well have succeeded if the European nations hadn't actively worked to tear apart the Empire and if WWI had ended with a stalemate.

 

[Vork]

I don't see why the problem was the "millet system" exactly, so much as just the problem being that Islamic law discriminates against non-Muslims. That they allowed a certain amount of autonomy, in itself, doesn't seem to be the crucial detail.

I also doubt that Christians etc really had full freedom of religion. Islamic law places various restrictions on non-Muslim religion, like not allowing to try to convert Muslims, or building new places of worship, or ringing church bells I think. I don't know how much was enforced in the ottoman empire, but I'm guessing non-Muslims had a second class status.