FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
If every Palestinian and every Jew will think as you want it to be then the conflict will increase day after day
and terrorism will win instead of peace and security.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Do Palestinians Want?
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
If every Palestinian and every Jew will think as you want it to be then the conflict will increase day after day
and terrorism will win instead of peace and security.
Tumah
Veteran Member
Tell me the truth. Did you only read the first line of my post?
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
People like you are the causing of the problem, how you know that all Palestinians
think the same and you should know that the Palestinians can achieve the high quality
of life without the support of Israel in which you said why Israel have to give them a good
standard of life, i hope the Americans will do the same and asking themselves why we need to
support Israel let them do it by their own.
What i asked is giving them the freedom to live in peace ?
Tumah
Veteran Member
Because I read the article quoted in the OP.
That's fine. You were the one who made it sound as though Israel needs to provide a high quality of life for the Palestinians in order for the terror to stop...
Of course, the difference being that Israelis are not stabbing Americans on the streets...
Ok, so now go back and read the article linked in the OP and see if this question is still relevant.
Shusha
Member
1. There is no prison. There is a self-governing semi-national political entity. Citizens of a country do not have the right to enter a foreign country without the permission of the country they wish to enter. Gaza is no more a prison than Canada is. Unless you want to argue that Gaza is part of Israel and should be governed by Israel....
2. You are reversing cause and effect. The belligerent actions of those governing Gaza are the cause of the conflict, not the result of it. No belligerence, no conflict.
3. Gazans have all the capability in the world to create a free, vibrant, economically viable nation. They choose not to take it. This falls into all the categories of Palestinian attitude addressed in the OP. Its not about creating freedom and a viable, workable nation. Its about removing the Jewish cancer and making the entire territory Arab Muslim Palestinian. And terror works and is morally correct. If they just wanted a nation, they could have had it ten years ago.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Do you regard an article as being facts.
No i didn't but you think that Israel has to help in which you said it isn't our business to support them.
The Israelis should kiss the Americans ........... than stabbing them, how to stab a person
who helps and supports you, that's a silly of you to think of it in that way.
It is just an article
Shusha
Member
Let's do a little thought experiment. Let's say that tomorrow the Gazan people decided that they didn't want to attack Israel anymore. Let's say they fully accepted Israel's right to exist in peace. Let's say they no longer used concrete to build bunkers and tunnels and instead built houses and schools and hospitals and water infrastructure. Let's say that they concentrated on building peaceful relations with Israel, with trade, with economic growth, with developing a tourism trade and a robust agriculture.
What do you think would happen?
What do you think would happen?
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Your advice is really good for the whole world, let us build houses for the poor and the homeless
than building the warplanes and the mass destruction weapons, i appreciate your ability to think.
Tumah
Veteran Member
If it contains facts, then yes, I do. This article was based on research and polling that were done to Palestinians for the past, something like 20 years by third party pollsters. Aside from the fact that you don't want to believe it because you associate with the Palestinians, is there any reason not to believe it? We see stabbings on the street almost every day here, we see on the news how the Palestinians give out candies when they successfully kill an Israeli, which corroborates with the article. I mean really, is there any convincing argument not to believe the article?
That's right. The people that stab you in the back (literally), you don't need to feel obligated to support.
I think you should ask DebateSlayer or someone with good English skills to translate my comment for you.
What do you mean by just? It also provides us with a glimpse into the Palestinian mind. That's important in deciding future policy.
Shusha
Member
You didn't answer my question. Here's another one: Why are Gazan's building bunkers and tunnels instead of houses and schools and water infrastructure?
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
You can see stabbing everyday, you gave me a feeling that it's the holocaust.
Polling and research is to you a fact of what kind of people the millions of the Palestinians are !
People, broad brush
I understood very well your silly comments, if one Palestinian stabbed a soldier then all the people
of Palestine are stabbers, your comment doesn't need a translator as it's a silly one.
Again a broad brush.
RocketJSquirell
Member
while we are discussing what the Arab Palestinians (a rather amorphous group with little connecting them but opposition to Israel) want, perhaps we can take a little time to learn about how their culture and cultural attitudes.
WHY THE ARAB WORLD IS LOST IN AN EMOTIONAL NAKBA, AND HOW WE KEEP IT THERE
By ignoring the honor-shame dynamic in Arab political culture, is the West keeping itself from making headway toward peace?
. . .
In order to understand the role of hard zero-sum, honor-shame concerns in the attitude of Arabs toward Israel, one must first understand the role of the Jew in the Muslim Arab honor-group. For the 13 centuries before Zionism, Jews had been subject to a political status in Muslim lands specifically designed around issues of honor (to Muslims) and shame (to Jews). Jews were dhimmi, “protected” from Muslim violence by their acceptance of daily public degradation and legal inferiority. Noted Chateaubriand in the 19th century: “Special target of all [Muslim and Christian] contempt, the Jews lower their heads without complaint; they suffer all insults without demanding justice; they let themselves be crushed by blows. … Penetrate the dwellings of these people, you will find them in frightful poverty.”
For more than a millennium, Arab and Muslim honor resided, among other places, in their domination and humiliation of their dhimmi—and when the occasional reformer equalized their legal status, he struck a heavy blow to Muslim honor. Noteda British envoy on the impact of Muhammad Ali’s reforms: “The Mussulmans … deeply deplore the loss of that sort of superiority which they all & individually exercised over & against the other sects. … A Mussulman … believes and maintains that a Christian—& still more a Jew—is an inferior being to himself.”
To say that to the honor-driven Arab and Muslim political player, in the 20th century as in the 10th century, the very prospect of an autonomous Jewish political entity is a blasphemy against Islam, and an insult to Arab virility, is not to say that every period of Muslim rule involved deliberate humiliation of dhimmi. Nor is it to say that all Arabsthink like this. On the contrary, this kind of testosterone-fueled, authoritarian discourse imposes its interpretation of “honor” on the entire community, often violently. Thus, while some Arabs in 1948 Palestine may have viewed the prospect of Jewish sovereignty as a valuable opportunity, the Arab leadership and “street” agreed that for the sake of Arab honor Israel must be destroyed and that those who disagreed were traitors to the Arab cause.
Worse: The threat to Arab honor did not come from a worthy foe, like the Western Christians, but by from Jews, traditionally the most passive, abject, cowardly of the populations over which Muslims ruled. As the Athenians explained to the Melians in the 5th century B.C.E.:
One is not so much frightened of being conquered by a power which rules over others, as Sparta does, as of what would happen if a ruling power is attacked and defeated by its own subjects.
So, the prospect of an independent state of should-be dhimmis struck Arab leaders as more than humiliating. It endangered all Islam. Thus Rahman Azzam Pasha, the head of the newly formed Arab League, spoke for his “honor group” when hethreatened that “if the Zionists dare establish a state, the massacres we would unleash would dwarf anything which Genghis Khan and Hitler perpetrated.” As the Armenians had discovered a generation earlier, the mere suspicion of rebellion could engender massacres.
. . .
WHY THE ARAB WORLD IS LOST IN AN EMOTIONAL NAKBA, AND HOW WE KEEP IT THERE
By ignoring the honor-shame dynamic in Arab political culture, is the West keeping itself from making headway toward peace?
. . .
In order to understand the role of hard zero-sum, honor-shame concerns in the attitude of Arabs toward Israel, one must first understand the role of the Jew in the Muslim Arab honor-group. For the 13 centuries before Zionism, Jews had been subject to a political status in Muslim lands specifically designed around issues of honor (to Muslims) and shame (to Jews). Jews were dhimmi, “protected” from Muslim violence by their acceptance of daily public degradation and legal inferiority. Noted Chateaubriand in the 19th century: “Special target of all [Muslim and Christian] contempt, the Jews lower their heads without complaint; they suffer all insults without demanding justice; they let themselves be crushed by blows. … Penetrate the dwellings of these people, you will find them in frightful poverty.”
For more than a millennium, Arab and Muslim honor resided, among other places, in their domination and humiliation of their dhimmi—and when the occasional reformer equalized their legal status, he struck a heavy blow to Muslim honor. Noteda British envoy on the impact of Muhammad Ali’s reforms: “The Mussulmans … deeply deplore the loss of that sort of superiority which they all & individually exercised over & against the other sects. … A Mussulman … believes and maintains that a Christian—& still more a Jew—is an inferior being to himself.”
To say that to the honor-driven Arab and Muslim political player, in the 20th century as in the 10th century, the very prospect of an autonomous Jewish political entity is a blasphemy against Islam, and an insult to Arab virility, is not to say that every period of Muslim rule involved deliberate humiliation of dhimmi. Nor is it to say that all Arabsthink like this. On the contrary, this kind of testosterone-fueled, authoritarian discourse imposes its interpretation of “honor” on the entire community, often violently. Thus, while some Arabs in 1948 Palestine may have viewed the prospect of Jewish sovereignty as a valuable opportunity, the Arab leadership and “street” agreed that for the sake of Arab honor Israel must be destroyed and that those who disagreed were traitors to the Arab cause.
Worse: The threat to Arab honor did not come from a worthy foe, like the Western Christians, but by from Jews, traditionally the most passive, abject, cowardly of the populations over which Muslims ruled. As the Athenians explained to the Melians in the 5th century B.C.E.:
One is not so much frightened of being conquered by a power which rules over others, as Sparta does, as of what would happen if a ruling power is attacked and defeated by its own subjects.
So, the prospect of an independent state of should-be dhimmis struck Arab leaders as more than humiliating. It endangered all Islam. Thus Rahman Azzam Pasha, the head of the newly formed Arab League, spoke for his “honor group” when hethreatened that “if the Zionists dare establish a state, the massacres we would unleash would dwarf anything which Genghis Khan and Hitler perpetrated.” As the Armenians had discovered a generation earlier, the mere suspicion of rebellion could engender massacres.
. . .
Akivah
Well-Known Member
Where do the Israelis fit in your Utopian vision?
RocketJSquirell
Member
ARTICLE CONTINUED
The loss in 1948, therefore, constituted the most catastrophic possible outcome for this honor-group: Seven Arab armies, representing the honor of hundreds of thousands of Arabs (and Muslims), were defeated by less than a million Jews, the surviving remnant of the most devastating and efficient genocide in history. To fall to people so low on the scale that it is dishonorable even to fight them—nothing could be more devastating. And this humiliating event occurred on center stage of the new postwar global community, before whom the Arab league representatives had openly bragged about their upcoming slaughters. In the history of a global public, never has any single and so huge a group suffered so much dishonor and shame in the eyes of so great an audience.
So, alongside the nakba (catastrophe) that struck hundreds of thousands of the Arab inhabitants of the former British Mandate Palestine, we find yet another, much greater psychological catastrophe that struck the entire Arab world and especially its leaders: a humiliation so immense that Arab political culture and discourse could not absorb it. Initially, the refugees used the term nakba to reproach the Arab leaderswho started and lost the war that so hurt them. In a culture less obsessed by honor and more open to self-criticism, this might have led to the replacement of political elites with leaders more inclined to move ahead with positive-sum games of the global politics of the United Nations and the Marshall Plan. But when appearances matter above all, any public criticism shames the nation, the people, and the leaders.
Instead, in a state of intense humiliation and impotence on the world stage, the Arab leadership chose denial—the Jews did not, could not, have not won. The war was not—could never—be over until victory. If the refugees from this Zionist aggression disappeared, absorbed by their brethren in the lands to which they fled, this would acknowledge the intolerable: that Israel had won. And so, driven by rage and denial, the Arab honor group redoubled the catastrophe of its own refugees: They made them suffer in camps, frozen in time at the moment of the humiliation, waiting and fighting to reverse that Zionist victory that could not be acknowledged. The continued suffering of these sacrificial victims on the altar of Arab pride called out to the Arab world for vengeance against the Jews. In the meantime, wherever Muslims held power, they drove their Jews out as a preliminary act of revenge.
The Arab leadership’s interpretation of honor had them responding to the loss of their own hard zero-sum game—we’re going to massacre them—by adopting a negative-sum strategy. Damaging the Israeli “other” became paramount, no matter how much that effort might hurt Arabs, especially Palestinians. “No recognition, no negotiations, no peace.” No Israel. Sooner leave millions of Muslims under Jewish rule than negotiate a solution. Sooner die than live humiliated. Sooner commit suicide to kill Jews than make peace with them.
. . .
Yet somehow, however obvious these observations are, their implications rarely get discussed in policy circles. Current peace plans assume that both sides will make the necessary concessions for peace, that compromise can lead to an acceptable win-win for both sides. As one baffled BBC announcer exclaimed, “Good grief, this is so simple it could be resolved with an email”; or as Jeremy Ben-Ami puts it, “It would take sixty seconds to lay out the basic solution.” But it’s only simple if you assume that Arabs no longer feel it’s a hard zero-sum game, that any win for Israel is an unacceptable loss of honor for them, that their “honor group” no longer considers negotiation a sign of weakness, compromise, shameful, and any peace with Israel, any Israeli “win” no matter how small an insult to Islam. During and (more remarkably) after Oslo, it became a matter of faith among both policy makers and pundits that the old era of Arab irredentism was gone. As one NPR commentator noted (during the intifada!), “Any Palestinian with a three-digit IQ knows that Israel is here to stay.”
The condescension of this remark is matched only by its inaccuracy. Not only does it consider the entire leadership of Hamas morons, but it ignores how deeply the psychological trauma of Israel affects the Arab world. Hamas’ Khaled Mash’al, by no means a two-digit-IQ-er, spoke thus at the height of the intifada:
Tomorrow, our nation [Islam not Palestine] will sit on the throne of the world. … Tomorrow we will lead the world, Allah willing. Apologize today [you infidels], before remorse will do you no good. Our nation is moving forwards, and it is in your interest to respect a victorious nation. … Before Israel dies, it must be humiliated and degraded. Allah willing, before they die, they will experience humiliation and degradation every day.
Even among the most Westernized Arabs, the wound of Israel’s existence cuts deep, as does the instinct to accuse Israel for Arab failures
. . .
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/176673/emotional-nakba
The loss in 1948, therefore, constituted the most catastrophic possible outcome for this honor-group: Seven Arab armies, representing the honor of hundreds of thousands of Arabs (and Muslims), were defeated by less than a million Jews, the surviving remnant of the most devastating and efficient genocide in history. To fall to people so low on the scale that it is dishonorable even to fight them—nothing could be more devastating. And this humiliating event occurred on center stage of the new postwar global community, before whom the Arab league representatives had openly bragged about their upcoming slaughters. In the history of a global public, never has any single and so huge a group suffered so much dishonor and shame in the eyes of so great an audience.
So, alongside the nakba (catastrophe) that struck hundreds of thousands of the Arab inhabitants of the former British Mandate Palestine, we find yet another, much greater psychological catastrophe that struck the entire Arab world and especially its leaders: a humiliation so immense that Arab political culture and discourse could not absorb it. Initially, the refugees used the term nakba to reproach the Arab leaderswho started and lost the war that so hurt them. In a culture less obsessed by honor and more open to self-criticism, this might have led to the replacement of political elites with leaders more inclined to move ahead with positive-sum games of the global politics of the United Nations and the Marshall Plan. But when appearances matter above all, any public criticism shames the nation, the people, and the leaders.
Instead, in a state of intense humiliation and impotence on the world stage, the Arab leadership chose denial—the Jews did not, could not, have not won. The war was not—could never—be over until victory. If the refugees from this Zionist aggression disappeared, absorbed by their brethren in the lands to which they fled, this would acknowledge the intolerable: that Israel had won. And so, driven by rage and denial, the Arab honor group redoubled the catastrophe of its own refugees: They made them suffer in camps, frozen in time at the moment of the humiliation, waiting and fighting to reverse that Zionist victory that could not be acknowledged. The continued suffering of these sacrificial victims on the altar of Arab pride called out to the Arab world for vengeance against the Jews. In the meantime, wherever Muslims held power, they drove their Jews out as a preliminary act of revenge.
The Arab leadership’s interpretation of honor had them responding to the loss of their own hard zero-sum game—we’re going to massacre them—by adopting a negative-sum strategy. Damaging the Israeli “other” became paramount, no matter how much that effort might hurt Arabs, especially Palestinians. “No recognition, no negotiations, no peace.” No Israel. Sooner leave millions of Muslims under Jewish rule than negotiate a solution. Sooner die than live humiliated. Sooner commit suicide to kill Jews than make peace with them.
. . .
Yet somehow, however obvious these observations are, their implications rarely get discussed in policy circles. Current peace plans assume that both sides will make the necessary concessions for peace, that compromise can lead to an acceptable win-win for both sides. As one baffled BBC announcer exclaimed, “Good grief, this is so simple it could be resolved with an email”; or as Jeremy Ben-Ami puts it, “It would take sixty seconds to lay out the basic solution.” But it’s only simple if you assume that Arabs no longer feel it’s a hard zero-sum game, that any win for Israel is an unacceptable loss of honor for them, that their “honor group” no longer considers negotiation a sign of weakness, compromise, shameful, and any peace with Israel, any Israeli “win” no matter how small an insult to Islam. During and (more remarkably) after Oslo, it became a matter of faith among both policy makers and pundits that the old era of Arab irredentism was gone. As one NPR commentator noted (during the intifada!), “Any Palestinian with a three-digit IQ knows that Israel is here to stay.”
The condescension of this remark is matched only by its inaccuracy. Not only does it consider the entire leadership of Hamas morons, but it ignores how deeply the psychological trauma of Israel affects the Arab world. Hamas’ Khaled Mash’al, by no means a two-digit-IQ-er, spoke thus at the height of the intifada:
Tomorrow, our nation [Islam not Palestine] will sit on the throne of the world. … Tomorrow we will lead the world, Allah willing. Apologize today [you infidels], before remorse will do you no good. Our nation is moving forwards, and it is in your interest to respect a victorious nation. … Before Israel dies, it must be humiliated and degraded. Allah willing, before they die, they will experience humiliation and degradation every day.
Even among the most Westernized Arabs, the wound of Israel’s existence cuts deep, as does the instinct to accuse Israel for Arab failures
. . .
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/176673/emotional-nakba
Akivah
Well-Known Member
Did you even read the linked article in the OP? We can see how Palestinians have answered polls for decades.
Postscript:
Oh wait, I read your comments. So are you choosing to disbelieve the polls or do you really agree with them?
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
I answered your question, the world indeed should spend more in building houses, hospitals for the poor
than spending them on the war machines, yes Gaza is included, tunnels are costing a fortune.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Neighbors and they were before the Zionists came.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Did they ask more than 5 millions of the Palestinians and hence they know what is the Palestinian mind ?
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
Oh stop talking around the bush.
I'll do it for you: The evil Zionist should go "back from where they came" and a few Jews will be allowed to stay as a minority under the Muslims.
There was that so difficult?