Thursday, January 5, 2017

A development in Islam we should support

Sar Shalom

The other day, I was listening on the Brian Lehrer Show in New York to United Arab Emirates' ambassador to Russia talk about his book about how someone can be both a good Muslim and a good citizen of the world. From his talk, I came away with the impression that most Muslims have the approach that being a good Muslim means saying "the umma, right or wrong." Of course, once someone takes that attitude, there is no way to support Israel over the Palestinians, because even if the Palestinians are wrong, as part of the umma, it is one's duty to support them. Without getting into any specific manifestations, Ambassador Ghobash rejects this tenet. In so doing, he makes it possible to reach an accommodation with Muslims in that he expands the grounds on which one can be a good Muslim and accept the presence of Israel.

10 comments:

  1. He seems like a good guy who would probably get beheaded in many Muslim communities. When there are more guys like him things might change. Given the realities on the ground in terms of education, economies, tribalism, sects, etc., I doubt it can happen soon.

    And of course the "umma," has a rather fluid definition given how Muslims often treat each other, doesn't it? Certainly, Palestinians have been treated worse by the "umma," than the Israelis generally. See:

    http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/p/all-arab-countries-except-jordan.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/fikraforum/view/the-new-normal-todays-arab-debate-over-ties-with-israel

    All of this raises a delicate question: Is this revived movement toward some kind of dialogue leading toward peace with Israel just a policy of certain Arab governments, or perhaps of an elite fringe? In other words, does it enjoy any grassroots support? Here the evidence is surprisingly clear, and also surprisingly positive. While Arab publics overwhelmingly dislike Israel (and Jews), solid majorities in most recent surveys, on the order of 60 percent, nevertheless voice support for a "two-state solution," which implies peace with the Jewish state. And they do so even when the question is worded to call explicitly for peace with Israel, or for abandoning the struggle to liberate all of Palestine. The exception that proves this rule, ironically, is the Palestinian public in the West Bank and Gaza, where support for a two-state solution has lately fallen to just below the halfway mark.


    See also

    http://eng.majalla.com/2016/08/article55250783/arab-israeli-relations-new-regional-framework

    ReplyDelete
  3. Whuile teaching at UC Irvine for 18 years and watching the Muslim Student Union in action in their opposition to Israel, it was interesting to note that only a few of them were "Palestinians". Most were either other Arabs, Pakistanis, Afghani in family background.

    Which begs the question: What skin did they have in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? The common thread was religion. That's what it is all about isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup.

      This is a long-standing religious war on the part of Muslims against the Jews in that part of the world.

      It's obviously not about social justice - or any kind of western notions around economic justice or Marxism - because if that were the case the progressive-left would oppose the Palestinian-Arab treatment by Arabs and Muslims throughout the Middle-East... not merely in Israel.

      Delete
  4. I also find it amazing the silence on the part of feminist groups and gay rights groups in the US who ignore how women and gays are treated in the Arab and Islamic world. The even come up with the absurd term, "pink-washing" because Israel treatrs gays so well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should not find it amazing because ideology trumps rationality in the case of these 2 and other similar groups. Any original intent was hijacked by the far left agenda.

      Delete
    2. Sorry Gary; I should have figured that.

      Delete
  5. "President-elect Donald Trump's transition has been floating the possibility of initially having the US ambassador to Israel work and live in the US consulate in Jerusalem, while the American Embassy remains in Tel Aviv.
    Several diplomats, Israeli officials and sources close to the transition who are familiar with the idea said it could be seen as compromise that gives a nod to Israel on Jerusalem -- which Israel and the Palestinians both claim as their capital -- without the firestorm a formal relocation of the embassy from Tel Aviv would almost certainly bring.
    Diplomats said there have been signs Trump may pull back from his campaign pledge to relocate the US Embassy to Jerusalem amid warnings from Arab and European diplomats to the incoming administration that the move could unleash violence, undermine the peace process, damage US standing in the Middle East, and endanger American personnel."

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/trump-embassy-plan-jerusalem/

    sigh.......oh well

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is not a time for half-measures.

      Delete