Cut and Dry, or Kindling for the Fire?

Cut and dry, or Kindling for the Fire?

It’s only very recently that Muslims (and/or Christians) in Arabia have taken part in anti-government protests; Egypt is a good case in point. We have also seen how demonstrations sometimes turned violent in what has been called the Arab Spring revolution.

For decades, even three quarters of a century, Arabs have bitten their tongues, and only in very intimate gatherings in most cases, they have voiced their hatred of the ruling class. People have been so paranoid at times; that they imagined that somehow the “supreme leader” could know their thoughts or whisperings behind closed doors, even when they travel abroad. It wasn’t their fear that a spy might be amongst their small group, taking part in a secret meeting, while taking mental note of every word that the others said, but they genuinely feared the head of state, even though there was no logical reason for them to suspect that anyone other than themselves could be knowledgeable, especially at any particular moment. Yet fear gripped them, and they continued to believe that he was aware of their private talks, whisperings or even their thoughts.

Fast forward just a little to decades from now, and maybe the grandchildren of these people have begun to process the fact that they are really more free than their parents have been and that life is really theirs for the taking. They are at ease no matter who they are with, or where they are.

But Muslims today, in particular, are very aware that they can’t be casual about what they say and do. Maybe someone will record their sayings or actions; even many Muslims in the West are still very mistrustful of governments in general.

This answers the question, only in part, about why Muslims don’t take part in nationwide protests against terrorism or even gather for any other cause, such as political or environmental. Maybe Muslims are not at all accustomed to protests? Then, others are probably just as selfish and disinterested in world/social issues as the next guy.

I think Muslims aren’t much used to the idea of protests, and also, they don’t see that it will do any good to protest, especially when it comes to terrorism; sure, it would give them a soap box to voice their concerns along with others, but besides that, the real change that is needed to stop terrorism isn’t going to come out of this kind of activity; I think most people would realize this if they reflected. In fact, large demonstrations against any minority would make that minority believe they are even more justified to hate others or make them feel more powerful. Many people might be inviting hatred and inadvertently make themselves targets, if they hold protests often and gather in public demonstrations against terrorists; even writing about the issue might give a crazy lunatic an idea. But we all choose in the end, what we want to protest, and how and what issues or events we think we can spend time or money on. Protests have always by nature been voluntary; it doesn’t mean that if someone doesn’t join an anti-terror protest that he isn’t anti-terror. But it might mean that he chooses to take part in other activities he feels will be beneficial to society. Many non-Muslims have never taken part in a protest either, even though they might believe in the relevance of a particular cause.

Probably there are personality types who seek notoriety or acceptance in group activities like protests, much the way that some people like to join clubs, like the Rotary or Lion’s Club (not the best examples of clubs most people can join, I think) or a club at their school, or committee at work, or the PTA or Green Peace. Some groups are more militant, others are more ‘activist’ (minus the militancy). Some of the members of organizations or groups started out in the Boys Scouts or Girl Guides, earning badges, or selling cookies for worthy causes. They are used to putting themselves out there, or working in teams. In some cultures, maybe it isn’t acceptable to protest against the government, which brings us back to the first point. I believe, just like most things, it is the individual’s choice, and that we shouldn’t judge people based on their affiliations, such as their Facebook groups or friends on the internet alone. It takes a lot more than a public profile on the internet to really know someone. It takes a lot more than a cursory look at some religious texts or anonymous websites to know a religion or its followers. And it takes more than a protest to know a country.

Nonie Darwish speaking with Robert Spencer

I respectfully request readers to find other resources as well as many of the materials I have written to date, (I am close to 90 blog posts to date) and do their research about the true meaning of Islam and research honestly, topics such as Women in Islam, Sharia law, International Law in Islam, as well as the books or websites I have previously mentioned. I might compile some kind of list which will appear on my blog, for resources. But for now, do your research. You are responsible primarily, for your own education. Don’t be fooled.      

Arab leaders as well as "oppression" and "racism" in the Quran

Coup d’état and assassination may not be “looked down upon” in the Arab world, as Nonie Darwish explains, but it is not giving a complete and true picture of the legality of what the Sharia says with regards to murdering an extremist or unjust ruler (if that is even considered alright is another question which is more complicated than she pretends); the sharia also states that murder of any Muslim is illegal because even unjust rulers should be first, advised, if they cannot be advised, then removed by force without the need to kill them, or otherwise they might be removed by force if no other recourse to any lesser action is possible. But before removing a tyrant ruler, we must ask ourselves, as Muslims, whether we can bear to live with this leader any longer, or if life is not as bad as the alternative if we do topple this leader? Who will take over as leader, will the gov’t begin pogroms of the people to find the assassins (or if he is not even killed, the attempted assassins), and so on. If the situation can become so much worse from the attempt to assassinate the unjust ruler, then it should not be done, for the sake of the society and the people. Another question would be, who will fill the vacuum, if anyone, and if ensuing chaos will harm more than benefit the society in the aftermath of such an event. We saw in Libya, that it is sometimes worthwhile to remove such a leader, if society is ready for change and can move forward. But then again, in the case of Ghaddafi, his removal is widely known to have been facilitated by the American attack on Libya, or bombing raids and the destruction of roads, etc. In Syria things have not gone as planned, or as some people would have hoped. Masses of protestors and innocent children have been slaughtered by the government forces in retaliation of the “Arab uprising” in the country.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Lies is on the 'back burner'

I am experiencing a medium to high level of lethargy as a writer, especially about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and I am not at all in the mood to write about her at present; I don’t know if I will want to do so in the future, I will certainly have to try and I believe I will do so eventually. But I think I have done quite a lot of writing (and actually have notebooks of information to type out) and thinking (critically) about the many lies, which some people continue to believe about Islam, and as my husband tells me, “it’s not worth it”, sometimes. I am suffering ‘X-treme burnout’ on this subject so can’t really do it justice (for now). There is already some of this critical information on my blog – with that I think I can take a vacation from the topic. For one thing, it is well known that actually, Robert Spencer is not an important or impressive figure in the social landscape, his views are remain popular with (at best), a fringe group of followers. I will however continue another time, in the future with the Ayaan Hirsi saga. Probably future writing about her will be included in other prominent stories about Islam, and the misconceptions being perpetrated by Media today as regards Islam. I will continue to include as many relevant labels as possible to make searching the site possible.

I'm a sponge and I can do no harm - a poem

“I’m not going to be fooled anymore.

I'm not going to be fooled anymore.

I'm... I'mm...I'mmm.

I'm not going to be fooled anymore.

But I can change my mind, right?”



 










Jane Dughatir: Dumb Waiter - satirical, but true

 As if to answer a question on “You want to be a billionaire”, "What is the GCC"' is my answer, the Question is “It’s not an Arab monarchs club".

Read this slightly humorous post, to find out what the oil money is really good for...
(There's more to life than oil... or oil money).

This is one of my older posts, which readers might like.

As always, I invite your comments, or criticisms.

J. D-N

Originally posted in 2011

Peace and Reconciliation are Possible, According to a Rabbi.

 The conversation -

“Happy birthday, Richard. Your birthday post was moving, especially the personal note toward the end in which you cite love as one of the primary influences motivating you. May I invite you to apply this principle to how one might approach the Palestinian/Israel conflict?

It would be woefully unrealistic to hope that Israelis and Palestinians will come to love one another anytime soon. But in the absence of love, reconciliation is still possible, even if it’s no more than grudging mutual recognition of one another, along with mutual acceptance that there’s at least some validity in the other’s position. With this, a conflict can be resolved through compromise, and the parties can live in peace.

Regrettably, the perspective that informs your posts on this blog militates against reconcilliation. Condemning everything Israel does while ignoring Palestinian transgressions or even mistakes—what you call “constructive imbalance”—is inherently and inevitably polarizing. I won’t use this occasion to argue over whether or not applying constructive imbalance is fair; we’ve argued over this before and will never agree. However, I will assert that it does not promote reconciliation, which, it seems, should be the primary objective of an approach driven by love.

I might add that your posts may be long on righteous indignation, but they are short on a quest for understanding. This, in turn, influences the tone of readers’ commentary, much of which is hostile and, in some cases, slinks toward anti-Semitism. As a case in point, check Walker Percy’s last comment on your previous post (on Obama’s election). You and I have differed on where to draw the elusive line between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism. But Percy’s post leaves no doubt. He clearly crosses the line with a distorted view of Judaism—not Israeli policy but the Jewish religion; Jewish history, and the Jewish psyche. Indeed, his application of Social Darwinism repeats a tactic used by the Nazis.

A moderator cannot be held responsible for everything that appears on his blog. But Percy has posted repeatedly with similar material. He has been welcomed and, at times, congratulated and thanked.

The issue here is not whether you now hasten to remove the post, or post a notice disassociating yourself from Percy’s libel. The key question is what is it about your blog that encourages someone with Walker Percy’s extreme and obvious bias to believe he is welcome here. Where love prevails, defamation knows that it is unwelcome.”

Ira, last name, I have unfortunately not included here, but it is available on the site along with birthday greetings for Richard Falk, on his 82nd year.

Analysis –

Peace can be achieved, believes the rabbi, if love is absent, but not if “understanding” of the others’ position is not helped by “love of humanity?” to eliminate all others who would cause even mere “hope of understanding” or some sort of “possible compromise” (my quotes, not the rabbi’s) to dissolve. I do see what he is saying, and agree. Understanding and compromise will be better than “pretended love” (which he seems to be accusing Richard Falk of – or accusing him of something perhaps more sinister? I won’t be one of those to point the “anti-Semitic” finger at R. Falk, here, today, or anytime. But it is a valid question; “where is this love?” as the Payolas sang two decades ago or more.)

If love does exist, in Falk’s heart for “the solution”, not the final solution, obviously, but some “heartfelt” compromise, or “hope” on the horizon, or in our not so distant futures, if ever, then where would he or we believe it could take root and with what? Will it take root in Palestine and Israel, simultaneously with a “two state” solution, somehow brokered by some agreement, etc. Or will it take root in Palestine, if Hamas becomes the “man of the hour”, so to speak, finally accepted by the international community (it is almost looking good now) as well as everyone in Gaza’s “peoples’ hero”? Or will Israel finally give land for Peace, which Palestinians will accept (not like what happened when, according to comments I’ve read, Gaza was given to the Palestinians, but then they refused to behave peacefully, Hamas launching hundred or more rockets into Israel, killing people (sorry, I don’t know all the details)? The reasons for their unacceptance of this supposed or ‘so-called’ “peace initiative”, which might have favored Israel, in actuality (again, according to what comments I have read only, not personal opinion for or against any one side), is clear to the Arabs and Hamas supporters, or most if not all Palestinians, but not to everyone. We see that Gaza is actually an “occupied land” much like the rest of Palestine (I’m thinking, again aided by the comments of others about recent history).

The rabbi writes of Falk’s site “[in contrast] where love prevails, defamation knows that it is unwelcome”. But before that he writes a few lines up “You and I have differed on where to draw the elusive line between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism.” I think, while the “Percy” fellow, whose ‘anti-Semitic’ remarks the rabbi is denouncing, and wants Falk also to denounce (and remove or block, from his site, as a sign of definite “love” for Israelis - as well as Palestinians, I’m assuming), must have angered a lot of people, but specifically Jews; it is obvious that the owner of his comments can be judged much more accurately/easily on them, than Falk can for not having denounced outright or removed them. But I also say this, for the sake of honest debate, not having seen the remarks, of which there might be quite a few – and to what degree of “hate” are they?? – A few thoughts,

Is Richard Falk, too much in controversies for his own good?

Why not just denounce, Percy now if need be??

These are questions I won’t answer, but readers of Falk can, to their own satisfaction.

As one who wants Peace in the ME, I hope such people, as the rabbi can be taken at face value as well.

While the rabbi speaks about the primary objective, which would be reconciliation and which would be achieved “by an approach driven by love” (because Falk’s own approach, (revising – Falk’s approach is driven by love, above, yet also struggles to achieve balance, it would seem) “constructive imbalance” is wrong, according to the rabbi, and maybe on reflection many others would agree with this viewpoint; it has its merits; for one thing, it appears to be more long-range than worrying about alleviating immediate suffering, and hoping (probably unrealistically) that Palestinians will suddenly move into the “next phase” without problems - just because they have suffered the most, and like many people who have PTSD, or stress related disorders, and suffer depression, anger, maybe uncontrollable aggression, and likely nurture a vendetta against Israel, almost impossible to counter, which no amount of “love” or even apologies and “mutual recognition” will erase, for a generation, if not more )

The Balkans -

The short range vision of Richard Falk, and the kind of supporters he has, (my view; but what do I know, really?), who want things done now, because it has been so long, I’m afraid, though well-intentioned, can’t have the effect that “reconciliation” such as happened in Rwanda, would have.
BUT, this is the Middle East, and this is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, not Rwanda, or the Balkans. In Rwanda all the people came to the table voluntarily; in the Balkans, the Muslims were forced to the table, by some kind of trickery; after having (mostly reluctantly I’m sure) given up their weapons. (The Serbs never gave up a majority of their weapons, it should be noted.)
In this conflict, and because it is a wider problem of Israel within the Middle East, as the only obstacle to the Muslim’s (and Christians’) shared ownership – with Israel - of Jerusalem, having annexed Jerusalem, Israel, the strongest military in the region, and the only country in the Middle East to possess not only nuclear capability, but nuclear weapons (and with its own nuclear program), which believes in its goal of “greater Israel” also is not believable; it isn’t probable that Palestinian will ever really “trust” the Israelis (the government), or even the masses of trained civilians.

Can the pacifist Israelis yield enough power in a “reconciliation” process to be able to avoid the mistakes of the international community foisted upon the Muslims (also Croats) in the Balkans? By working closely with the Palestinians, they would be the only ones, I believe, trustworthy or capable enough – people or groups such as “Jews against Israel” or something – (find names; revising) to get the requisite cooperation of the Palestinians, or any groups; especially, Hamas must be there, at the “reconciliation table”. But even then, if a miracle such as envisioned, “honest to goodness” peace talks and reconciliation were in motion, for the first time in the conflict’s long history, not stalling, or circumvented by some attacks by masked, maybe even unknown, gunmen, or “terrorists” out of the blue, who might in reality (because they are “unknown” and an X in the equation) be anyone, to tip the process, turning it on its head, as past attempts have gone; the greatest obstacle of all would be the world community’s reluctance to have a free Palestinian state in the Middle East.

I think, at any time, Peace could revert back to war, just because, as has happened even in a free and democratic country like America; there are behind the scenes people, or groups which will never relent, never let the Muslims have their rights on Jerusalem recognized, although that is a prerequisite as well, and would be a major sign of real and final changes. Jerusalem as a focal point is the real X in the equation (X = Peace, or X = Reconciliation). Jerusalem is to the equation, “the fulcrum of change”. Whatever metaphor we speak about, Jerusalem is the key. I don’t believe the Zionists, or Israel, or the Israeli lobby will give it up, not even a little.

My view at present is, “does constructive imbalance necessarily prevent Jewish groups from coming to negotiations or a reconciliation process reminiscent of others in recent history (past 15 – 20 years or so), or does it only give some extremists - i.e. Zionists are the ones who would complain the most, it would seem is obvious, as “constructive imbalance” is trying to give the Palestinians some leverage, even if it’s only a little bit - an excuse to refuse to “negotiate a settlement” or try for “reconciliation”?

The Long-term -

If mutual recognition is more important than love; “constructive imbalance” shouldn’t stop anyone from seeking their object of peace or reconciliation, because it is “not worth it”. It is a proverbial “throwing the baby out with the bath water” situation. Constructive imbalance is a temporary fix used by some to try to counter the effects of media, etc. As I said, Falk’s approach is a “short term” one; the rabbi’s suggestion would be a long range one – i.e. get everyone to the table with “mutual recognition” that they have legitimate grievances - Israel is afraid of ‘annihilation’ by its neighbours; which could happen with a war with Iran, or any government, such as a new Islamic Government in Egypt (however hard to predict final outcomes there) and the Palestinians are the victims of an ongoing genocidal campaign by the Israeli gov’t and army (which includes trained volunteers).

This would be a long process, which would require every side’s dedicated cooperation, no matter what the positions, or no matter what the levels of animosity (of some of the parties). There would be necessarily, planning and then stages; can we begin with one of the previous attempts (such as anything even a little equitable (Camp David II, or Oslo, previous?) in planning, and formulate the stages for reconciliation. For example, is there anything that can be had as a kind of “peace pipe”?; I think, we have that in part, in the recent events, therefore, now maybe Arab states’ recognition of Israel (who does at present recognize Israel?) The two-state solution is of course an option, as always. What about a one-state solution, which would counter uneven distribution of resources, institutions, holy sites or important landmarks, and more?

South African Apartheid -

South Africa in the 1990s was not quite ready for a reconciliation process. In many ways, it mirrors the situation in Palestine and Israel today. In the 2000’s Mandela’s release from prison gave blacks hope and recognition that they could also soon take their places in a changed South Africa. His election as President added more encouragement and erased the previous status quo; the white supremacists’ exit from the scene came next. Despite the problems that exist there today, all South Africans are politically and for all intent purposes free.

On the bright side -

A compromise is before the UN right now, but Britain is abstaining from an important vote; is it because “mutual recognition” doesn’t apply to the Palestinians, on paper? Or before a vote in an international assembly, when the clock is ticking? (As of the last writing, the UN had not yet voted for Palestinian nationhood and non-member status in the UN. Now it has done so, and the results were greatly and over-joyously celebrated in the UN assembly last Thursday, by (live?) media coverage, in the Arab world, and in the world at large.)

“Long live Palestine! And “Hooray”, or “God is great!”

Facebook.com/J.DughatirNiemi