Thanks Ed, I just read your post (something I was to bring up but not with as much pertinent info. These political actions have had a devastating effect upon the peoples of the region and it has now reached into the governments' actions of many countries. The destruction /or/ segregation of a Holy site from an entire population has always been a provocative action; the idea being to demoralize the peoples that have been conquered, to let them know they can no longer pray to their God. But no one has ever said warriors make sane decisions. It seems politicians have this same difficulty.
Being secretive and insular and "holding oneself above those around one" has always been a recipe for condemnation. This is another condition that has been spoken of here recently: "not being part of the group, team, culture, society." By not being inclusive, by not sharing, by forcing children to "be true to culture/religion" there is an animosity created that grows to the point of release which is usually an attack upon the "different" within the group.
Indeed Viggo - "intervention" - like it is a "sickness" of psychological programming, like it is an addiction or like it is something that needs to be "beaten" out of a person.
There is a sickness in the world and it is that attitude that separates, the attitudes that cannot see the spirit is the same in all of us, the the "vibration of life" that flows through all is the same no matter what form it may take and it should be honoured as such not sought out for destruction. But how does one convince "the indoctrinated" otherwise? How does one"de-instruct" 12 years of education that leads to a life of servitude and consumerism imitating "quality of life"?
The "religion of business". The "religion of science". The way of control through coercion and sometimes outright brutality has been taught by zealous leaders since the beginnings of mammalian groupings but "organized religion" has made it a cause in and of itself which has "trickled down" through all aspects of life.
Arthur, considering the "Crusades" and the destruction of the more educated writings of the Arabs at the time and looking at the accomplishments of Saudi Arabia, I think you have taken a wrong tack here.
Darryl Insularity and covetousness create resentment and fear in others. On 06/08/2012 5:48 AM, Viggo Andersen wrote:
Lawry, as to "Or an interpersonal level, Israelis and Palestinians (and Arabs/Muslims) generally can get along fairly easily. Indeed I know of many deep and lasting friendships between them, including marriages." Where have they settled down, married couples? I have a YouTube video about Israeli/Palestinian couple Jasmin Avissar and Osama Zatar from November 2008, German tv. They had to move to Germany to be able to live together. I also know about groups in Israel of psychologists or what they were doing "intervention" actions to "save" Israeli girls from their Palestinian boyfriends. Viggo.At 08:25 06-08-2012 -0400, de Bivort Lawrence wrote:Good morning, Keith. Yes, Muslims view Jews, Christians (broadly defined) and Muslims all as "Ahl al-Kitab" -- People of the Book. All the early converts to Islam were, of course, Jewish, Christian, or pan- and polytheistic. Converting to Islam was not difficult for Jews and Christians, as they and Muslims have the same god. So conversion simply meant understanding that Muhammad was the most recent of the prophets/messengers/ sent by God/Yahweh/Allah, and taking the Qur'an as the last and literal message/voice of Allah. If you will, you can think of Muhammad and the Quran as the 'latest edition.' Would you say more about the effect of Sunni-Shi'a tension on Muslim-non-Muslim relations? Thanks. My sense is, and this summarizes many disparate conversations with Arabs/Muslims about Israel, is not that Israeli technological and scientific success provokes them against Israel, but that the seizure of Palestine; the current onerous and murderous occupation; the Israeli black ops against Arabs and Muslim countries; and the 1948, 1956, and 1967 wars are the cause of such anger at Israel. Israel's technological succes is something that many Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims admire, though the relative debauchery of some segments of the Israeli Jewish population do not. Of course, the Arabs have their own record of world-class debauchery among some of their elites -- a source of considerable resentment and contempt among the general population. Or an interpersonal level, Israelis and Palestinians (and Arabs/Muslims) generally can get along fairly easily. Indeed I know of many deep and lasting friendships between them, including marriages. Cheers, Lawry On Aug 6, 2012, at 7:11 AM, Keith Hudson wrote:Muhammad enjoined his followers to treat Jews and Christians with respect, as fellow believers in the Bible (that is, the old testament) and partners of the Abrahamic line. What has coloured Muslim's attitude to non-Muslims is a byproduct of the growing overlay of antipathy between the Sunnis and Shias of their own faith. Also, I feel sure that the scientific and technological successes of Israel in recent years, rather than its mere existence, have been provocative. Keith At 20:53 05/08/2012, Arthur wrote:Just to provide some more perspective on the very unstable middle east. Israel, the Arab world's all-purpose enemy <http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/author/gjonasnp/>George Jonas | Aug 4, 2012 6:01 AM ET | Last Updated: Aug 4, 2012 9:48 AM ET National Post And how is the Arab Spring? Well, there's bad news, and good news. The bad news is that since the beginning of the phenomenon that has been discussed more and understood less than any in recent years, hostility to Israel in the region has only increased. The good news is that while the appetite to harm the Jewish state and its inhabitants has grown in the Arab/Muslim world since the fall of Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia launched what was supposed to be the region's democratic renewal, the capacity to do so has diminished. An increase in hostility was predictable. Hatred against Israel, kept on a low boil, is the organizing principle of the Middle East. It's the region's main fuel of governance; often its only fuel. Some ruling regimes kings, dictators, whatever may have oil wells and sandy beaches, but other than hating Israel (and looking after their families and tribes) they have few if any ideas. If they do, chances are it's to hate some other group in addition to Israel. In the Middle East a country's national purpose often amounts to little more than a list of its enemies. A feeling of being ill-done by dominates the consciousness of groups and individuals. Since it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, it's not necessarily baseless: The easiest way to have an enemy is to be one. The centrality of hatred to the culture is remarkable. The Cartesian idea is "I hate, therefore I am." Self-righteousness is overwhelming: each desire thwarted becomes an example of justice denied. It's not a pretty place, but millions call it home. In many ways, Israel is a godsend to the one-trick ponies who rule the region. Their culture defines "ruling" as inoculating your own sect or tribe against all others, including the ones that form your own country. Many Middle East nations Iraq, Syria, Libya, to name three are just temporarily halted civil wars. They're truces rather than countries. Canada may be "two solitudes," but it isn't an uneasy truce between French and English Canadians. Iraq is, between Shia and Sunni Muslims. In such an ambiance, nothing is handier than an all-purpose enemy, just out of reach, close enough to seem a realistic threat but too far to be one. Tyrants can govern by whipping up enough popular sentiment against the Jewish state to give their regimes an apparent national purpose and distract people's attention from domestic woes, then relax and spend some money in the capitals of Europe. The key is a low boil, though. If the anti-Israeli sentiment boils over, causing riots against the government for being too soft on the Zionists, or foolish attempts to attack Haifa with rockets, which in turn invites retaliation, the people's hatred of Israel becomes a headache for the very rulers who instigated it. "Yeah, well, it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch," somebody might say, "I'll lose no sleep over it." He should, though, because it's like pulling a thread from a piece of fabric. Things can unravel in an instant. Tyranny, Egyptian-style, under Hosni Mubarak or Libyan-style, under Muammar Gaddafi, often manifested itself in dictatorial governments balancing on a tightrope, trying to maintain a fragile peace with Israel against their own bellicose people, trying to counteract the effects of the sentiments they themselves instigated. When they couldn't, the forces they helped conjure up turned against them. If lucky, they died in a hail of bullets on the reviewing stand like Anwar Sadat; if not, bludgeoned like a cornered rat in a culvert, in the manner of Gaddafi. It's a fate Bashar al-Assad has been trying to avoid, which is hardly surprising. Assad "has threatened to rain missiles down on Tel Aviv should NATO try to dislodge him," as <http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/how-the-arab-spring-keeps-israel-safe-7268>Michael Koplow put it in the National Interest, but in fact Syria's tyrant has been raining missiles (and if not missiles, then shells and bullets) on his own towns and villages. No wonder, for that's where his enemies live his actual enemies, as opposed to his mythical ones. It's his fellow Syrians who want to trap him in a culvert and drown him, preferably along with his entire tribe. Israel has no interest in touching him with a 10-foot pole, especially as long as he's keeping Syria's armed forces and rebels thinning each other's ranks. We won't understand much about the Arab Spring as long as we persist in looking at it through Western eyes. We see popular uprisings against dictatorships as moves in the direction of Western-style democracy. If they happened here, they probably would be. Where they're actually happening they're taking their societies in the opposite direction. The Arab Spring is an attempt to return the region to its roots. It's not to Westernize the Middle East and make it more democratic; it's to Easternize it and make it more Islamic. If the early 20th century was about the East trying to join what it couldn't lick, the early 21st may be about the East trying to lick what it hasn't been able to join. _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futureworkKeith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com_______________________________________________Futurework mailing list <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
