"diatribe without substance." Are you kidding me?

Submitted by Kay P (United States), Sep 1, 2008 at 07:58

well, I could tell you the same thing that your response is totally out of context to what I have stated. I clearly said that Palestine is not about the land, it is about the Islamic supremacism, that is prevalent throughout Muslim dominated countries. My bringing in Kashmir was for the same reason, Kashmir is all about the inability of Muslims to live with other religions, especially once they are in a majority.

How else do u explain the persecution of minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Middle-East, Kashmir or anywhere Muslims live in a majority. Maybe you have a theory about a Muslim feeling of victimization that drives them to be intolerant, but this feeling has been present all throughout Islam's past. There is enough empirical evidence to backup my claim, so I guess you would be kind enough not to refute me or ask me to provide some statistics.

I talked about Pakistan in this context because I have come across Muslims from Pakistan, Iran and the M.E spewing hatred on Israel/Jews with broad claims as to how Israel is a racist state practicing apartheid. The evidence they provide are the numerous checkpoints Israel has for the Arabs, the inability of Arabs to gain positions in the military and recently the wall that Israel has built to seperate the Palestinian territories from Israel.

I firmly believe that Jews have a right to be in Israel, the land of their ancestors so if you disagree then we don't have a point to debate. Far from being true, almost half of Israel's population is Arab and they live a normal life in Israel until they start demanding "self determination" just as the Kashmiris in India want. I would be glad to know what would any nation do if it knew that a certain people want to blow its people up at any cost and would stoop down to any level to achieve their aim. What Israel does is self-defense and the agression the zionists show in targetting the terrorists is the only way they keep the murderous Islamists in check. I

actually know a Palestinian from Israel, who does not have a problem living there, largely because he avoids getting involved in politics and religion. Now would you please name a few Muslim countries with Jews living there in decent numbers without being "opressed." It is a fact that most Muslim countries restict the entry of Jews, esp if you have an Israeli stamp on your passport. There is wide-spread anti-Israel/Jew sentiments amongst most Islamic countries/muslims in general which is analogous to all Christians hating Muslim because of Christians being persecuted in the M.E or Hindus hating all Muslims in general for the activities of Pakistan/Bangladesh.

Talking about Iran, Israel had never shown agression towards Iran until Iran's maverick President made open claims to anhilate Israel. pre-revolution Iran had good relations with the state of Israel. It is only after the Islamic revolution that Iran's foreign policy took a U-turn when the murderer Khomeini took power and wiped out all the liberal/secular people in Iran. The ones who were not killed had to flee Iran for Europe or the USA. My problem with Iran having the nuclear bomb is that this country is ruled by a bunch of maniacs who openly threaten another country with destruction.

How does Iran have anything to do with what goes on in Palestine other than identifying with the common cause of the Ummah, particularly the Arabs, at the top of the Muslim heirarchy. I never saw Muslim's protesting the genocide of thousands of Muslims in Bangladesh during 71 or Darfur. On the contrary, I have seen quite a few Muslim's trying to back up the Sudanese adminstration for its acts which is clearly an Arab-non Arab Muslim conflict. Iran, since the revolution has provided moral/logistic support to anti Israel militias like Hamas and Hezbollah but Israel has still exercised restraint in its dealing with Iran. Iran's boldness is bound the increase with the Mullah's getting the bomb.

I have had the priviledge of having a small argument with a anti-Israel Palestinian the other day about Kashmir as he told me that India is occupying Kashmir by force and that the hatred Indians have towards Pakistanis is because Indians still haven't gotten over the reality of Pakistan. I was amused by his diatribe and pointed out that Palestinians still haven't gotten over the reality of Israel.

There is so much similarity between what happened in Israel in 48 as compared to what happened in India in 47 only that in India it happened on a much bigger scale. Close to a million refugees resulted from the creation of Israel who still languish in the refugee camps courtesy the Arab countries even though the people of Jordan, Syria, Egypt are the same ethnic stock which would mean they could have easily been assimilated. On the other hand almost a million Jewish refugees resulted in Arab nations, most of whom were settled by Israel after the catastrophic war of 48 which was a combined effort of the Arab nations against the existence of Israel.

I don't think we hear the Jewish refugees demanding their right to go back to their homes in the Arab countries. During India's partition around 7 million Hindus/Sikhs were brutally expelled from Pakistan against their will while a similar number of Muslims went to Pakistan, most of them willingly to live in their concept of an ideal Islamic state. I said willingly because a lot of Muslims who chose to live in India were not thrown out against their will. Such an option was not available to the Hindus/Sikhs in Pakistan.

A lot of those refugees were from Sindh/Frontier/POK/Punjab with some of them having nothing in common with the other Indians except their religion unlike the Palestianian Arabs and the Jordanians/Lebanese/Syrians. If I'm not wrong, I don't see them asking for their right to go back after 60 years, which is exacly what the Palestinians are demanding.

My Palestinian Islamist friend tended to overlook this fact by saying that the partition is not relevant as it is history. It is history because Indians have moved on while the Muslims are still stuck to their past. What particularly irks me is when Pakistanis talk about self-determination for Palestinians/Kashmiris while considering the partition of India and the resultant expulsion of non-Muslims as their right.

I respect your feelings about nuclear disarmament which would ideally be the best way to go for the whole world if it ever was possible but the fact is its never going to happen. I still think that as a last option a western style nuclear armed secular democracy would still be more responsible in exercising its nuclear option rather than a theocratic Islam driven state like Iran or Pakistan where the constitution mandates that Islam is the only "true" religion and all other beliefs are false.

Please don't point out the dhimmi status of Christians in any Islamic country which paramounts to pure racism. I don't know if you are a practicing Hindu which is totally irrelevant here, but what I know for a fact is that Muslims in general regard Hindus as a polytheist people indulging in shirk, the worst of all the sins in front of Allah which makes the Hindu belief system to be unacceptable underlying the core problem between India and Pakistan.

If you are going to respond to me please give a detailed response to the points I have made rather than glossing over and calling me an Islamophobe as that is best self-defense I seen from Muslims until now.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".