Haniyeh threatens religious war for Jerusalem

[oberliner]

Gaza – Ma'an – Ismail Haniyeh, prime minister of the Gaza-based government, threatened Tuesday that a religious war will enflame Israel, calling for an Arab-Palestinian campaign to stand with Jerusalem.

Speaking at a conference organized by his government in Gaza City, Haniyeh said that "what is happening now exposes the reality of Jerusalem's future and the Jews' plans."

"Don’t be afraid of a religious or non-religious war, because Jerusalem will always remain Islamic," he added, calling on the American administration to stop Israel's "blind" policies.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=269220

[ProgressiveMuslim]

1. Well, Israel's plans have certainly been exposed, haven't they.

[oberliner]

2. "The Jews' plans" is the phrase Haniyeh used

He also said: "Jerusalem will always remain Islamic"

[ProgressiveMuslim]

3. Just like Netanyahu speaking to AIPAC. Did you notice that?

[oberliner]

4. Netanyahu: The connection between the Jewish people and Jerusalem cannot be denied.

He also said:

"The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 year ago and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today. Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our capital."

If one looks at those comments side by side with Haniyeh's remarks where he said:

"Don’t be afraid of a religious or non-religious war, because Jerusalem will always remain Islamic"

Where does that leave things?

[Violet_Crumble]

5. They're both as bad as each other in that regard...

One says that Jerusalem will be Jewish, the other Islamic. Nothing of great shock value there, seeing as neither is a moderate and both hold absolutist stances when it comes to Jerusalem.

[shira]

6. The Jews' plans - as Haniyeh is quoted - includes Arabs living as equals in a united Jerusalem

Whereas Haniyeh's plans are for a Jew-free Jerusalem.

Think pre-1967 Jordanian occupied Jerusalem as a best case scenario.

Yes, of course, they're both as bad as each other. :eyes:

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Sorry, but they are both as bad as each other when it comes to Jerusalem...

I think you meant to say Nutty in yr title, btw...

As Arabs in Jerusalem don't live as equals now, if Nutty claims they will live as equals in a Jewish Jerusalem, then the only difference between him and Haniyeh is that Nutty's a bigger liar...

[shira]

8. No, they're not. Nothing that Nutty declares or believes comes close to the Hamas charter...

....WRT how Hamas would run things if they were in charge of Jerusalem.

Lieberman's worse than Nutty but even he wouldn't approach the depravity that is in Hamas' charter WRT the treatment of their political enemies.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. Yeah, they are similar creatures when it comes to Jerusalem...

They're both absolutists and extremists. Neither of them are interested in 'the other' having equal rights at all.

Out of curiousity, do you support Israel having all of Jerusalem for its capital?

[shira]

10. If Nutty were like Haniyeh, the situation for Arabs in Jerusalem now would be FAR worse.

So you're wrong.

On Jerusalem, I support the Geneva Initiative and wouldn't mind if there were some effective International protectorate over all Jerusalem. I'm basically for any solution that guarantees security for Israel's citizens.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. As PM rightly pointed out, their language is the same...

I wasn't interested in who's worse than the other. The thing is that the language that was used in saying Jerusalem would be Islamic is the same as Nutty when he says Jerusalem would be Jewish....

I'm basically for any solution that guarantees security for Israel's citizens.

What about the security of Palestinians? Surely that must be of equal concern for you?

[shira]

32. But J'lem being Muslim brings back conditions between 1948-67 when there was no freedom of religion

Jerusalem being Jewish means like now, Jerusalem is a city open to freedom for any religion.

It's not the same.

=====

As to security for Palestinians once 2-states is reality - once the occupation ends and the conflict is officially over, what Palestinian security are you concerned about? Security from Israel or from Arab forces?

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Stop making pathetic excuses for Nutty...

The language they both used was the same, end of story. I'm not interested in yr constant attempts to airbrush Nutty's ugliness...

[shira]

41. okay, whatever

[Violet_Crumble]

64. I didn't mean just move to another part of the thread and start defending him again n/t

[shira]

69. I'm not defending Nutty.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. Yes, you are n/t

[FarrenH]

11. As rarely as I agree with shira

I think this is a reasonable point. While on the evidence I would expect some discrimination against Muslims from an Israeli government, what Haniyeh envisions is far worse. To be clear, this does not mean that I think Haniyeh speaks for all Palestinians, or change my feelings about Israeli activities in East Jerusalem.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. And you'd both be right if the argument had been who was worse..

..but it wasn't...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

12. You criticized Haniyeh for saying "the Jews." I pointed out Bibi does the same.

And he also made comments about "The Jewish people" in Israel as a whole.

Jerusalem will always be Islamic. Jerusalem is holy to 3 religions. So what?

[oberliner]

13. Where did I criticize?

I just wanted to point out that Haniyeh's comment was made specifically about Jews and their plans.

I'm concerned that the desires of large numbers of Israelis and Palestinians with respect to Jerusalem will not be able to be mutually fulfilled.

This makes me believe that some degree of "conflict" could continue to go on even after a "peace agreement" of some kind is reached (whatever it may entail).

I've always thought the Jerusalem question to be the hardest component for compromise.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

15. I pointed out that Haniyah was correct in his observation.

You corrected me to say:

"The Jews' plans" is the phrase Haniyeh used.

I responded by saying, Nehanyahu also speaks of "the Jews."

You disagree?

[oberliner]

16. I am shocked that you think his statement is correct

I would strongly disagree with his statement and I would've thought you would as well.

He said: "what is happening now exposes the reality of Jerusalem's future and the Jews' plans."

I can tell you that whatever is happening now in Jerusalem does not reveal anything about "the Jews' plans" but rather about the plans of the Israeli government.

I hope that you would agree that the distinction is an important one.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

19. "what is happening now exposes the reality of Jerusalem's future and the Jews' plans."

You think this is incorrect?

[oberliner]

21. Of course! Don't you?

There is no such thing as "the Jews' plans" for Jerusalem.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

26. Bibi has made his plans eminently clear. At least he doesn't lie about it.

From his AIPAC Speech:

“The connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel cannot be denied.The connection between the Jewish people and Jerusalem cannot be denied.

The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 year ago and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today. Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our capital.”

(Note: Bibi says "the Jews" NUMEROUS times in this speech. You can hardly criticze Haniyeh for doing the same).


AS REPORTED... just a few snippets from a quick google:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/03/15/netanyahu-jerusalem-building-doesnt-hurt-arabs/

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Jewish building in east Jerusalem does not hurt the city's Palestinian residents.

Speaking to Israel's parliament, Netanyahu said the construction of homes for Jews in the city's eastern sector "in no way" hurts Palestinians.

Israel drew angry reactions from the U.S. and the Palestinians by announcing the construction of 1,600 units in an east Jerusalem neighborhood during a visit by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden last week.

The decision has sparked the worst feud between Israel and the U.S. in recent memory.

In his speech, Netanyahu gave no indication he would cancel the project or limit construction in east Jerusalem.



http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/182565
Netanyahu: Jerusalem Construction Will Continue

Reported: 16:57 PM - Mar/15/10
Follow Israel news briefs on Twitter and Facebook

(IsraelNN.com) Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the Likud faction meeting said that "building in Jerusalem and everywhere will continue as it has been done over the past 42 years. The cabinet decision on ending the freeze at the end of ten months is binding."

Netanyahu made the comments in response to a question by MK Tzippi Hotovely on the impact of the crisis with the United States on the issue of freezing construction.



----------------------------------------------------
What kind of silly game are you playing?

Bibi has laid out the future for all to see. Do you expect Haniyeh not to see it?

I understand what as a "liberal Zionist" you have to keep pushing the line of 2-state solution... let's elect a "moderate" government... if Palestinians would be "good" we could have peace...

But the reality on the ground is there for anyone to see.

Yet you choose to blame Haniyeh for calling a spade a spade rather than the gov't of Israel for having the pernicious plans?

Interesting!

[shira]

28. and what are those plans? To drive all Arabs out of J'lem?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

29. Edited my post. It must be so painful for hasbara chum lords to work in this changing

environment...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

30. Anyone can look at this map and draw their own conclusions about the intentions of the gov't

of Israel... every gov't of Israel, btw...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/23/world/middleeast/jerusalem-map.html

[oberliner]

36. The government of Israel's plans - not "the Jews' plans"

Doesn't that distinction matter?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

37. It doesn't matter to Bibi. You expect it to matter to Haniyeh?

Here's the thing. I'm perfect fine with not using the phrase "the Jews." But you can't criticize Haniyeh for using it when Israel's leader does.

I'm trying to discern if you are upset by the substance of what Haniyeh says or if you are upset that he says "the Jews."

Can you please clarify?

[oberliner]

39. This thread was about a statement made by Haniyeh

Can't we at least agree that there is a problem with his use of the phrase "the Jews' plans"?

As to the rest of Haniyeh's comments - I find them all to be quite disturbing.

That he is telling people not to be afraid of a "religious war" and that Jerusalem "will always remain Islamic" is troubling.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

40. I find it disturbing that you aren't more concerned with Bibi saying "the Jews" and speaking

in your name and on your behalf.

He has made clear that Jerusalem will be Jewish forever. Do you find that disturbing?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

42. One thing that is never addressed here about this use of languge:

Within Palestine, "yahood" (Jews) is widely used to reference Israelis.

From within the small mixing bowl that is Israel/Palestine, that is the view from within. Jews, Christians, Muslims.

When we would be sitting in our family room and would hear shots, someone would remark, "yahood" (meaning it was the nearby settlers shooting off rounds.)

Saying "yahood" doesn't not imply an attempt to include World Jewry in Israel's crimes. It's how Israelis are referred to from within. It's not Arab Israelis in Beit El who are shooting rounds off. The IDF (which includes a wider array of Israelis) is referred to simply as Jaysh (army).

Compare that to Netanyahu's use of "the Jews." His clear goal is to absolutely connect the Jewish peole in Israel to "World Jewry." When Netanyah says "the Jews" will always settle Jerusalem he is clearly including YOU in that statement. Haniyeh is not.

Personally, I'd be much more upset by Bibi using "the Jews" in a clear attempt to connect World Jewry to his nefarious enterprises in Jerusalem, than I would be by Haniyeh saing "the Jews" when he's clear referring to TPTB in Jerusalem.

[oberliner]

44. According to the article, he also uses the word "Israeli" later in the quote

There is a reference in the article to "Israeli Judaization"

Do you speak Arabic? If so, maybe you can find his speech in Arabic and check out the wording that he used. It's hard for me as a non-Arabic speaker to rely on English translations from other sources, but I would think that a Palestinian source would have gotten it basically right.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

45. Does that mean Bibi is speaking in your name? You won't even address my point.

Why?

[oberliner]

50. What a ridiculous question! Do I ask you if Haniyeh is speaking in your name?

Of course not.

[oberliner]

47. The whole thing is a recipe for never-ending conflict

Look at the two statements that I posted together, one from Netanyahu and one from Haniyeh.

My point there is that if these beliefs are so passionately held by so many - how will the conflict ever be resolved?

Add the recent comments of Abbas to the mix as well:

"We will cling on to every grain of soil and every stone in Jerusalem."

To quote Mustafa Barghouti's recent remarks on the subject:

"Peace starts from Jerusalem, and if Netanyahu doesn’t recognize Palestinian rights in Jerusalem, he will not find a partner for negotiations and peace will be an illusion."

and to quote Shimon Peres:

"Jerusalem is a city of human, religious and cultural mosaics. Jews, Moslems and Christians live in the city, with each community preserving its cultural heritage, social patterns and institutions, as well as its educational systems. The harmonious coexistence in Jerusalem depends on the continued functioning of these systems, institutions and holy sites."

[ProgressiveMuslim]

48. Palestinians don't insist on the whole thing. But East Jerusalem is non-negotiable.

Who's not compromising?

Please!

[oberliner]

49. All of East Jerusalem is non-negotiable? All of the Old City? The Western Wall?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

51. YOu know FULL WELL that East Jerusalem is for Palestinians. The issue isn't what Palestinians WANT

...it's will Israel STOP THE FUCKING DRIVE TO GOBBLE UP AS MUCH LAND IN E. J'LEM AS POSSIBLE...

as if the onus of this is on Palestine!

I take heart in the fact that there are Jewish Israelis by the thousands who protest this evil in Sheik Jarrah. Thank goodness for decent people.

[oberliner]

53. The Ma'an Headline was: Haniyeh threatens religious war for Jerusalem

Ma'an publishes an article where Haniyeh tells Palestinians not to be afraid of a religious war because Jerusalem will always remain Islamic.

Your headline for the article is: "Haniyeh calls out Bibi for his evil actions"

If anyone is playing a game here, it sure isn't me.

As I've said repeatedly, I support the Geneva Initiative. Clearly, you do not.

The Geneva Initiative deals, in some detail, with an equitable way to address the issue of sovereignty in the Old City. I was curious to see what your take was on those issues - but clearly, you have none.

Edit to add: The first part of this message was in response to statements that have been since edited from your initial post.

[shira]

54. Obviously, the Geneva Initiative is too Rightwing for some here

Incidentally, Carter and Chomsky are among those who endorse it.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

55. You too can support those who work for justice in Jerusalem, and for peace in the long term...

To read about Jewish Israelis working for justice in East Jerusalem,I recommend

Jerry Haber's blog
http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/

and Bernard Avishai's
http://bernardavishai.blogspot.com/

To get involved in the US, check out:
www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org

www.endtheoccupation.org

[ProgressiveMuslim]

56. Food for thought for you, Oberliner:

From Bernard Avishai:

I confess feeling a twinge of pathos when I heard on Reshet Bet radio this morning how Benjamin Netanyahu told his AIPAC audience in Washington that the Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3000 years ago, would continue doing so today, and then hearing the crowd roar its delight.

These are not stupid people. They are serious people. They know, surely, that the construction in contention is in East Jerusalem neighborhoods that threaten to entirely cut off 300,000 Palestinians from their families and commercial opportunities in the West Bank. They know that any effort to keep these neighborhoods, or preserve the status quo, will result in Bosnian style violence. They know that this violence would further undermine American interests in the region.

They know that 41% of Israelis (its professional elites, disproportionately) oppose this construction, even if a slightly larger number favor it, so that, at best, continuing Netanyahu's policy will tear the country apart. They know that Israeli governments have wasted $17 billion on a settlement project that might have been invested in Israel proper, including West Jerusalem. They know that Israel has no way of remaining a democracy if settlements continue and a peace deal, including partition of Jerusalem, is not forthcoming. (Kadima's Haim Ramon followed the report of Netanyahu's speech on Reshet Bet and made all of these points himself.)

They know that, as Ehud Olmert told me himself, he and Palestinian President Abbas had already held advanced discussions over a formula for sharing Jerusalem; that his formula entailed keeping the city physically intact, but allowing Palestinian neighborhoods to revert to the sovereignty of a Palestinian state, while the Holy Basin fell under the custodianship of Israel, the United States, and Arab countries, including Palestine. They know that Jerusalem would, ideally, be a capital for two highly interdependent states; and that whether or not Jerusalem will be an international city in any formal sense, its security in the long run will require the presence of international forces.

They also know, finally, that American Jews have about as much in common with King David's iron age Israelites as American Chinese have with the Shang Dynasty. They know that it was the fanaticism and corruption of Judean kingdoms that lost Jerusalem. They know that, since then, normative Judaism has seen Jerusalem as a moral ideal, like Utopia, not a material place; and that Zionism was meant to valorize a modern Jewish nation, not an ancient land. They know that the Passover festival begins next week, and Jews everywhere will explain to their children why freedom is a universal principle. So what exactly were they cheering?

I do not mean to ask this question cynically. There is some kind of hole in the heart that backing Netanyahu over "Jerusalem" seems to be filling. There are intelligent and decent people gathered at AIPAC, and many young people who are eager to stand for something. What is it, other than the insistence that they, who "didn't do anything," fiercely admire Israelis who did something?


http://bernardavishai.blogspot.com/2010/03/aipac-agonistes.html

[oberliner]

57. "There are intelligent and decent people gathered at AIPAC"

Some food for thought for you in that comment from Avishai.

Maybe AIPAC isn't quite what you think it is?

[shira]

58. and these decent serious people "know".....they're only stirring up shit and want a confrontation?

:eyes:

[ProgressiveMuslim]

59. It's never too late to turn to justice Oberliner.

I am well aware that AIPAC aren't a bunch of devils. They are Americans who have false and dangerous beliefs. They represent a tiny portion of American public opinion.

Luckily for us all, the days when they dominate the discourse is over.

[shira]

60. AIPAC "represents a tiny portion of American public opinion".

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/03/11/the-israel-lobby-and-gentile-power/

snip...

"The power of Likud-supporting American Jews both in the Jewish community and in American politics generally has much less to do with the success of Likud’s ideology among American Jews than it does with the broad, pre-existing alignment between the ideas of the Israel lobby and general American public opinion.

Take AIPAC. From where I sit, AIPAC isn’t powerful because of the Jewish votes it can sway. Most Jews have views on Israel that are closer to the J-Street lobby vision than to the AIPAC line, and if a vote among America’s Jews decided our Israel policy the policy would be significantly to the left of where it is now. It’s not even because of the money; ‘pro-Israel’ PAC money is a drop in the vast and ever-expanding river of American campaign funding.

A group like AIPAC enjoys power and recognition not because it controls or even represents the votes of Jews. AIPAC’s power rests on gentile ideas and support; if a politician gets loudly and publicly labeled anti-Israel by AIPAC and its allies that politician will get hammered in the next election because so many American gentiles want their politicians to support the Jewish state. AIPAC works like the NRA; it is the publicly accepted voice on an issue about which the public has strong views. "

[shira]

31. So what are those plans? Can you be clear?

[Violet_Crumble]

35. What do you think the intentions of the curernt Israeli government are? n/t

[shira]

43. That's what I'm asking PM. It's odd I can't get a straight answer.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

46. The facts are plain for all to see!

All one need do is consult a map:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/23/world/middleeast/jerusalem-map.html

[shira]

52. so to be clear - you believe Netanyahu is trying to rid the area of Arabs?

[Violet_Crumble]

65. That's exactly what the Israeli govt is trying to do n/t

[shira]

67. Okay, so you believe this because __________?

[Violet_Crumble]

70. ..I don't have the cognitive ability of a slug, and I'm not a True Believer n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

61. I'm asking you n/t

[shira]

62. Nutty's intentions are security for Israel as #1

And #2, if Nutty can broker a peace deal, he's probably all for it - as were his predecessors from Likud like Begin and Sharon. Why wouldn't he want to be THE Israeli Prime Minister to broker a peace deal? Think legacy, etc.

Only the Israeli Right is capable of making a peace deal.

[Violet_Crumble]

63. What do you mean by security?

Interesting that you were so confused when I asked you why yr only interested in security for Israelis but not Palestinians, but here you are yet again making some amazingly crazy claims about the intentions of a RW extremist who has no interest in a peaceful resolution to the conflict...

[shira]

68. security, meaning no Gaza repeat when Israel withdraws from the W.Bank.

You talk security for Palestinians but what does that mean to you? With Israel out of the territories, what kind of security are you concerned about? Palestinians needing security from Hamas and Fatah?
I asked you before but you didn't answer.

Most people thought Begin and Sharon were RW extremists with no interest in peace. They were wrong.

[Violet_Crumble]

73. Newsflash: Nutty IS a RW extremist with no interest in peace. ..

I want to see the same level of security for Palestinians and Israelis, and when you only mentioned security for Israelis and not Palestinians, it made me wonder why yr not interested in the security of Palestinians...

[oberliner]

33. What is a hasbara chum lord?

I googled that phrase and couldn't find anything.

Can you explain what you meant by it?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

38. It's self-evident, in Shira's case.

It must be a painful time to be peddling the standard propaganda.

The world... indeed even those in the US who had previously had eyes only for the standard Zionist narrative... are WAKING UP!

[Violet_Crumble]

66. C'mon, PM! Shira is just like Obie and her views are expressed by the Geneva Initiative!

Sorry, I had a bit of a chuckle when I saw Shira jump on that bandwagon. I think I'm going to wander off and reaquaint myself with that document and see what all this stuff is that Shira's saying speaks for her! ;)

[shira]

72. Olmert's offer in 2008 was pretty much the Geneva Initiative

And if that ends the conflict and people get on with their lives, why wouldn't I be for it?

The question is, why aren't the rest of you for it?

[Violet_Crumble]

74. LOL. So you agree with everything in that document?

And where did I say I wasn't in support of the Geneva Accord? Can you point me to the post where I said that?

[shira]

75. I'm for Olmert's offer from 2008, so why wouldn't I be for Geneva since it's basically the same?

[Mosby]

14. Palestinians: Obama wants Israel to hand over Abu-Dis to PA

The Obama Administration is demanding that Israel hand over more West Bank land to exclusive PA control, including the Abu-Dis area adjacent to Jerusalem, Palestinian sources told Ynet Thursday.

According to the US vision, the move will take place as part of reverting to the state that prevailed in the West Bank before the outbreak of the last Intifada.

According to the sources, the American plan calls for Abu-Dis – where Palestinian government institutions were previously established– to fall under full Palestinian sovereignty. The possibility of the area serving as a future Palestinian capital has already been discussed in the past.

Other demands made by the US include the release of about 2,000 prisoners by Israel, as well as significant gestures pertaining to daily life in the West Bank, the Palestinians said.

"The most significant demand is to restore the situation to what it was on the eve of the Intifada," one source said


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3868404,00.html

I don't know how much of this is true, but if any of it is accurate the Obama admin wants Israel to make significant concessions while getting nothing in return.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Abu-Dis isn't even part of Jerusalem...

Why do you believe that Israel should get something in return for handing over control of occupied West Bank territory to the PA? Handing over control to a small part of the West Bank is not by any stretch of the imagination a 'significant concession'. Israel should even be there in the first place...

[Mosby]

22. any change to the status quo

is a significant concession. What concessions (or confidence building measures if you prefer) is the PA willing to make to promote peace?

Nothing.

They are just kicking back enjoying the spectacle.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. The status quo is occupation and is totally unacceptable!

You seem to believe the occupiers need to be rewarded by the occupied for taking steps to comply with international law. So, what other situations where there's an occupier do you apply that bizarre logic to, or are you just singling Israel out for special treatment?

[Mosby]

24. Israel cannot quit the occupation until UNSCR 242 is resolved

It's a classic "catch-22" situation.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Of course it can. It's what it did in Gaza n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

27. NOTHING???? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?????

I"m sure in the broad light of day you'll retract that idiotic statement.