My final New Matilda column for the year is about the Israel/Palestine conflict and what may lie ahead:
"The greater ramification of Israeli intransigence is a growing belief among Palestinians in a one-State solution. While a two-State answer is still widely accepted in both the Israeli and Palestinian communities - even though the details of such an arrangement remain largely undecided - the increasing unlikelihood of a viable Palestinian State could lead many Palestinians to lose hope and pick-up on the growing sentiment within the Palestinian intelligentsia."
My New Matilda archive can be found here.
My New Matilda archive can be found here.
14 Comments:
And the Israeli people are still adamant about no return. Seems like you think the standstill will remain for another 38 years.
Yes, mistake made. Apologies all. No excuse, except that it was rushed.
Mistakes do happen. Shock, horror!
AL may have made some minor errors, and may know less about minutiae of Israeli politics than some others, but what he is writing is valuable because he is telling the truth.
I disagree with one point, however: "There are small signs that the Arab world is starting to accept the Jewish State." They would be rather big signs by now. 'Small signs' would have started with Sadat in 1971, and by the late 70s even the PLO was prepared to recognise Israel on the 67 borders.
Israel could have made peace anytime on those borders, but instead has been determined to pursue a 'facts on the ground' land grab policy. I think AL is right is suggesting that if Israel doesnt make peace on the two state model soon, then they will face the demand for a binational state, which would of course ironically spell the end of the 'Jewish state.'
Nope, havn't read it, heard it's very interesting, though.
Researching for my book on the subject - aside from spending time in the region - requires ridiculous amounts of reading. Can't read everything, though trying to nonetheless.
Why doesn't he give us a couple of examples of all the good things Israel has done for the Palestinians to counter the "never heard anything good about Israel from the media" - There's a start. Fukin Wanker.
Nice Orange, your making the same mistake Antony recently made, confusing men with women.
Of course, I could have misread your silly post.
Well, I apologise. You're not confusing the sexes- your post looked like it was referring to Guttmann's book, not the article referred to by Addamo.
There's nothing wrong with Blair- feel free to go and argue with his mates in the comment section- I'm sure we'll all appreciate that.
More evidence of my poor comprehension- wtf is 'RWDB'? I'm guessing RW is right-wing...
Oh, and Andre- *Gutmann, not Gutman. I'll forgive you, though.
Not at all Orange. I just think spelling someone's name correctly is the polite thing to do if you're going to discuss them.
If Addamo, sorry Addamo_01, took offence at me correcting her/his spelling- then I apologise.
Islamaphobia will do. There is no equivilant Talmud in the Islamic culture. Fully half of the hadaths are considered fake.
While the Torah is full of "Do this now to these particular people" edicts, they don't have a language that calls it to be taken further except for Amalek.
The koran is all future tense in regard to killiong Jews and others.
Antisemites considering the Midrashes to be hilarious.
No, there is nothing new under the sun
Why don't we discuss your antisemitism?
Funny. I thought we were discussing your antisemitism.
uppy, why bother, look at your writing and tell me you are anything but a moron trying to pick a fight/
Is there some reason an antisemite cares how haddath is spelt? I understand it is purely arabic and we merely use phonetics such as in the 20 or so ways that qaddaffi is spelt.
Casual search reveals this site. I don't vouch for it. For all i know, it is fake itself:
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/000849.html
Ameer wrote:
I don't find things in the Qu'ran objectable [sic] but many Hadiths are objectable [sic], so I don't really follow Hadiths. Firstly, there are so many fake ones. And even if they were true, if they go against Islam's teaches, they are still wrong. I think the best thing to do is just not take Hadiths seriously.
And this:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txw/hadith.htm
An extremely thorough researcher, Ignaz Goldziher, studied the Traditions from around 1870 to 1920, and those studies are still considered among the best research ever done. Goldziher, with absolutely impeccable research, including extremely solid documentation, showed that a vast number of hadith contained in the six collections were outright forgeries, which meant that the meticulous isnads supporting them were also forgeries and fictitious.
Since Goldziher's documentation is so compelling, Islamic historians began claiming that legal traditions and historical traditions were entirely distinct, in order to maintain their absolute trust in the validity of all hadith. Goldziher's results seem to imply that the majority of hadith are NOT valid, and so only a minor fraction of hadiths are.
Finished. You must have missed in in some stupor.
Post a Comment
<< Home