That reminds me, whatever happened to Yasser Arafat’s blood that he donated on September 12th?
Would you accept Yasser’s blood if you needed it, december? Please don’t dodge this question.
<<Would you accept Yasser’s blood if you needed it, december?>>
Of course. Who wouldn’t?
Blood types are separate and independent of race, religion, ethnic group, politics, sex, etc. I’d accept anyone’s blood, as long as it’s Type A - positive.
This line tells me that you don’t really know about the dynamics of the Middle East. If the Wailing Wall is the holy Jewish site, than the holy Muslim site is in Mecca.
There are many sites that are important to Muslims, Jews and Christians. The Dome of the Rock is one such site. According to Jews it contains the stone where Abraham was going to sacrifice Issac. According to Muslims it is where Mohammad rose to heaven.
or also Type O - Positive/Negitive
It should go without saying that:
-
Arafat’s offer was a publicity stunt, whereas Israel supplied substantial amounts of blood and other medical supplies to the people of Jenin.
-
By contrast, after the bombing of Hebrew University, the Palestinians didn’t offer 2,000 units of blood for the maimed students. They celebrated in the streets.
A perfectly fair answer to a facetious question, and one that says more about my preconceptions of you than anything else. I withdraw it unreservedly.
Before the usual suspects get too carried away with this thing, let me stick in my own two cents worth.
First, it is pretty apparent that Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount was intended as an assertion of Israeli power and as a provocation. Sharon had to have known that and had to have intended it as just that. I suspect that he and his people would have been terribly disappointed if there was not a riot in reaction.
Second, aren’t the Muslims allowed to have as many sacred sights as they want? Who says that they get Mecca and no more? My own faith seems to have a whole bunch, including a fair number in Israel and the West Bank.
Third, the problem of Israel and the Palestinians probably is insoluble as long as the participants are married to mutual policies of immediate and escalating retaliation. Until the retaliation cycle is broken this thing could go on until the last Israeli and the last Palestinian go after each other with rusty fingernail clippers. Someone has to break the cycle. Since Israel has a real government, one capable of imposing its will on its own population, Israel will have to be the side to take the critical first step. I don’t see anything that indicates that Sharon’s government has the will to take the first step. I suspect that Shron sees his retention of power as dependent on the continuation of this insane quasi-war.
That is not to say that the Palestinians are free of guilt. Rather it is to say that the Palestinian cause is so fragmented, so beset by faction and outside powers with their own agenda, and so lacking in anything that can be fairly regarded as a real government that the Palestinians are incapable of walking away from the cycle of vendetta that as defined and described the thing since 1967. To demand some sort of virtuous government in the West Bank and Gaza as a prerequisite to doing something that presents a hope of peace is just wishful thinking.
Fourth, and probably as disturbing as anything, I see my country abandoning its role as mediator in this mess. I don’t see Washington doing much beyond hand wringing and periodically issuing blast of empty rhetoric.
All of this may well be simplistic, but it looks pretty obvious to me.
Since I am the only person who had mentioned Mecca prior to this, I’ll field this one.
Nobody has said that the Muslims are not entitled to how ever many holy sites as they want. Refer back to where tclouie where it says that:
.
According to the way I read that, tclouie feels that the Jews are only entitled to the Wailing Wall as their holy site.
Now refer to my previous post where I used a simple If Then statement to say that If the Jews can only have the Wailing Wall as their Holy site, then the Muslims only holy site is the Ka’aba.
Many sites are holy to Jews, Muslims and Christians and for the Palestinians to get all worked up over Sharons visit to the Dome of the Rock was insane.
What sort of access to holy places did the Jews have when Jerusalem was under Jordanian control? What kind of access to holy sites have Muslims had with Jerusalem under Isreali control?
tclouie wrote:
“There you go. I’ve provided five cites in this thread, six if you count the reference to The Nation. Three cites in this post alone. Jackmanii and Brutus have still not provided even one. Funny – whenever I debate Israel/Palestine in this forum, I find myself having to provide tons of cites on demand. Yet my opponents cannot seem to provide even one that I ask for. And then they have the gall to say my cites aren’t good enough, still without providing any of their own. I guess you have to expect that when you’re debating Israel on this board.”
Yes, and when You have proved Your point, there will be a complete silence or if You ask (naughty) questions, there will not be answers, just demands that You have to prove “this or that” and more questions…, but not answers. (I am referring to different threads in this site about the Israel-Palestine question).
Anyhow, the fact that many people prove their point from other sides of the world is very “educating” and interesting, and there is always readers that honestly want to know more.
As You know, You can’t write in every thread, however much You might be interested in the topic.
Summa Summarum; please, do not give up, we’re here, somewhere, reading.
Further tclouie wrote:
“One-sided”? I would argue that events themselves are one-sided. Besides, this is a debate, you’re supposed to take one side. “Lack of understanding of history and religion in the area”? I think Sharon understands even less than I do, which is especially
alarming in light of the fact that he lives there and runs the place."
Sharon understands everything. He really knew what he was doing, (expanding), from the very beginning.
tclouie wrote:
“Besides, one of my main debating points has always been that this conflict is not primarily about religion. It’s about economic survival and human rights.”
Yes, religion is only used when it comes handy. Usually it is enough to say: “the other side is just religious fanatics”, and the silent masses believes they do know everything about it.
Brutus wrote:
“Would you also like a cite regarding the religeous significance of Temple Mount?”
I am interested in this topic, so feel free to give some. (About both religious sides).
London_Calling wrote:
“Well tclouie , you better get used to it. After the straw men, the next tactic is sometimes one of attacking you and your motivations for being “anti-Israeli” (with the oh-so-subtle anti-Semitic undertones) - that was one of december’s favourites way back when.”
Well, I am anti-Israel, but not anti-Jew.
I am also anti-nazi, but not anti-German/Austrian (and a dozen other countries where there is/were official nazis, including my own country).
The Blood question:
So why did they need the blood in the first place?
So, if a solider uses civilians as a shield in battle, the minimum I would ask for is to fix some blood.
Thank you for the cite. (Finally!)
I disagree with you as to whether we can clearly say who violated the December-January ceasefire. In the thread I cited, I had a link to an excruciatingly detailed, day-by-day, almost blow-by-blow chronology of the current intifada, published in London’s Guardian. That chronology makes it clear that Hamas’ resumption of activity followed some aggressive actions by Sharon. In the Palestinian view, Sharon had not responded positively to their unilateral ceasefire. Of course it’s true that the Israeli side never reciprocated with its own ceasefire – maybe they should have done so. To me, this represents another “lost opportunity” that can be laid at Sharon’s feet. If I were the Israeli PM, I would have at least acknowledged the overture, maybe even backed off a little bit.
As for Arafat possibly rigging the new elections: why in the world can’t we bring in Jimmy Carter and a whole slew of independent observers to make sure the election is fair? If we want it done, it can be done.
I am not backing down on the holy site question. Of course I’m aware Al-Aqsa sits on a site that was once the greatest Jewish Temple; that’s why I called it “Temple Mount” in my OP. However, I maintain that the Muslims have a greater right to that particular site, because they actually have a building constructed on the site which has been in continual use for centuries. Yes, of course it was wrong that the Jews were expelled from the site and their Temple destroyed, but the Muslims should not be penalized for a crime of the Romans.
(Hm, maybe that argument has implications for the return of the 1948 refugees and their descendants! I would not be opposed to paying off the refugees if their land is currently being lived on by an innocent third party. Or maybe the Israelis can just pay rent to the former Palestinian residents. As the Midnight Oil song said, “The time has come!” – not for the new people to get out completely, but to pay the rent.)
(However, I do not place the settlers in the same category. Their presence directly harms the Palestinians’ well-being – their access roads, their occupation of the best lands and the best wells, cutting down olive groves to build apartment blocks, etc. The settlers should go.)
**
Excruciating, yes, but not in the way you claim.
As the chronology makes clear, the period of supposed “calm” you refer to coincides with the Israelis responding to a wave of suicide bombings by moving into the West Bank and besieging Arafat’s headquarters. If Palestinian terrorists were less active at that time, it may be because the leadership had its hands full with soldiers and tanks, rather than being able to concentrate on unarmed civilians.**
Having observers does not guarantee fair elections. And I still see little evidence that any party to the conflict wants free, open elections.**
True, that would indicate a willingness to acknowledge error.**
It’s depressing that anyone would believe that sharing sites of religious significance “penalizes” one party. However there are obviously Arabs who feel that way plus others who found Sharon’s visit, stupid and provocative as it was, a convenient excuse to return to violence.**
And perhaps some monetary settlements will be agreed to eventually. They might even take in reparations to Jews harmed by riots and being forced to leave their homes in Arab-controlled lands. We could raise money for this from payments for all the Jewish property seized in the wake of the Holocaust in numerous European countries.