Three stages of being here

@Thinkerbell Good on you that actually read it till the end 🙂 My argument is that your thought that they'll change sort of religious is entirely wrong

@val70

The change is coming sooner or later.

Islam has yet to have the religious Enlightenment Europe had hundreds of years ago, but it is coming.

Salman Rushdie will be remembered long after the Iranian Ayatollahs are forgotten.

@Thinkerbell Salman Rushdie is of Kashmiri Muslim descent. On the Pakistani side of Kashmir the people aren't even speaking their own Kashmiri language any more. If you like to enlighten Pakistan then please do that, although I think that you'll have the same result and they don't even have religious leaders in politicking there. What you call enlightenment only was followed in Europe by colonialism and exploitation. Not something to wish for any nation

@val70

Colonialism followed in Europe not because of religion (unlike the early conquests of Islam), but because of the universal human trait of greed. The industrial revolution is what made European colonialism possible. The innovative techniques of warfare developed by the Mongols made Genghis Khan's empire possible too.

It took 700 years to rid western Europe of the Muslim invasion ("no hay moros en la costa") and it hasn't quite been accomplished in eastern Europe to this day.

As for Rushdie, yes he is from Kashmir, but that didn't stop the first Supreme Leader of Iran from issuing a death fatwa on him, and is the reason Rushdie lost an eye in an assassination attempt on him a few years ago by a Muslim fanatic named Hadi Matar (hmm... does he have Spanish blood...?)

@Thinkerbell Christianity was one justification that European powers used to colonize and exploit Africa. Through the dissemination of Christian doctrine, European nations such as Great Britain, France, and the Netherlands sought to educate and reform African culture. Trust me, it takes an European like me to know what shame colonialism still brings us. I can see it all about Belgium.

Muslim invasion you said. A period of Muslim rule of most of Spain saw a flourishing of learning and interfaith harmony, though some historians debate the extent of religious tolerance. The legacy of Muslim Spain is still visible today in various aspects of Spanish culture. Persecution of Jews in Spain escalated over centuries, with major outbreaks of violence in 1391 and culminating in the Alhambra Decree of 1492, which ordered the expulsion of Jews who refused to convert to Christianity. That same year marked also the end of Muslim rule in Spain with the fall of Granada.

If you want examples of christians having been persecuted in Europe for writing a book, well, I'll offer only Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. He was executed, specifically burned at the stake, for his role in the English Reformation, which included the creation of the Book of Common Prayer. The chief architect of the Enlightenment, Voltaire, while known for his broader advocacy of religious tolerance, also expressed anti-Semitic views in his writings. However, he actively defended individuals and families facing religious persecution, most notably the Calas family, whose patriarch was wrongly executed for murdering his son

@val70

Yes, spreading of Christianity was encouraged by colonialists as an auxiliary means of keeping the subjugated areas under control, but nevertheless, the primary goal of the colonialists was profit. Once maintaining colonial control became too expensive (i.e., unprofitable), they gave up the colonies.

Cranmer is hardly a good modern example of someone killed for writing a book, since he is pre-Enlightenment, and can more properly be considered part of the religious turmoil associated with early Protestantism.

And as for Calas, he was not Jewish, but a Huguenot. As a child, I used to live in a town founded by Huguenots called New Rochelle.

@Thinkerbell As for the religion part in the colonisation effort I'd like to point you to the parliamentary speech by Jules Ferry of 1884 in which he also said: "superior races have a right because they have a duty". I fear that some of these urges in our culture haven't changed much. Instead of interaction with others there's much more the feeling of superiority and the right to tell others how to think.

It's obvious that these days Islam is being targetted. Like the Bible the Quran contains many verses that can be interpreted as promoting violence, particularly in the context of warfare and punishment. However, it also contains verses that emphasize peace, forgiveness, and restraint. The interpretation and application of these verses have been a source of ongoing discussion and debate within Islamic thought.

This ongoing interpretation without end is what's unsettling for our culture much more than one thinks. It's also something that's still very much done concerning the Bible too. Look at the countries that come up as being evil, and you'll not find that the one big oil rich country under the continuous joke of a religious sect that centers on the puritanical interpretation of Islam.

Moreover, personally I'm shocked that in the one country that has so much power there are indeed religious groups that believe that the problem in the Middle East needs to be settled by favouring one religious group against the others. As for the nation and their people themselves in question, for the majority there now continiously claim that their country is solely for them, well, not knowing that there were christians living in Gaza was yet other pointer to their own non-interaction and absolute extremism

@val70

Re Ferry: Kipling wrote a poem in 1899, The White Man's Burden, the first stanza of which goes

"Take up the White Man's burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child."


Yes, Saudi Arabia murders journalists from time to time and practices a harsh form of Islamic law, but I don't think it seeks, as a matter of national policy, the destruction of Israel or the US. And then there is the further consideration, very much practiced during the Cold War: "Yes, so-and-so is a swine, but at least he's our swine and not theirs." It's known as Realpolitik.


Certainly there are extremist groups in Israel, but I would venture to guess that in Israel, the vast majority of the population understands that most Palestinians would favor a one-state solution, with Jews and Christians reduced to dhimmi status. That is why a two-state solution is a must, once the Ayatollahs are deposed, and Iran becomes as reasonable as Egypt and Jordan have already become.

@Thinkerbell What was the nationality of those terrorists of 911 again? I guess that you also forget that Arab Israelis haven't got the same rights as Jewish Israelis either. It's the most prominent in the land laws. Of course, the non-existance of the one constitution but the multitude of basic laws in Israel instead has the same reason of existance. Israel is made as a land for the jews afterall. Claiming anything else is untrue. I'm here not judging anything but those are the facts that are. It's not even what's valid in Europe yet where certain factions are indeed calling for seperate laws for seperate groups of religious or some other factional divide of people these days. The two-state solution is a dead parrot now. One could call it a Great Norwegian Blue but it's very much dead. Israel is taking everthing into one country and will miss out on a regional peace for ever. Not my wish but it's what there's on offer. Just ask anyone in Saudi

@val70


I rather doubt that 9-11 or al-Qaeda were matters of Saudi national policy.

"Bin Laden is estranged from his family and from Saudi Arabia, which revoked his citizenship in the early 1990s after he was caught smuggling weapons from Yemen."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bin-laden-family-evacuated/


Be that as it may, it only reinforces the need for a two-state solution, where one state can be a homeland for Jews and the other a homeland for Palestinians.

@Thinkerbell You're brushing the origins of the 911 terrorits and the non-existance of equality before the law in Israel way too easily aside there. They're the two most important factors why the Middle East isn't ready for peace as yet

@val70

I would say the Iranian regime and the terrorists it supports are the most important current factors why the Middle East isn't ready for peace yet.

@Thinkerbell It's your absolute right to think that, but that doesn't make it true either. How can any non-violence ever lead to real peace when there's no equality before the law? It will show up trumps in both the state of Israel and Saudi. Whatever the Abraham accords maybe called it's not an achievement of real peace like there was between Israel and Egypte at Camp David once. It's going to lead to yet more oppression of a certain people, and you might call them Palestinians now but by then there'll be as welcome everywhere there as Armenians are now in Turkey and the rest of the Middle East

@val70

I'm not sure what your point is. Unlike the Palestinians, at least the Armenians have a country.

@Thinkerbell

Oh, and Iran vis-a-vis Saudi:

Iran executed at least 975 people last year, the highest number since 2015, UN report says

https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-executed-least-975-people-215209826.html

Meanwile,

@Thinkerbell There was only in 2023 a one-day offensive by Azerbaijan that resulted in the displacement of over 100,000 ethnic Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh, and continued ceasefire violations and border clashes. Sounds familiar? And somehow I don't think that number of death penalties shows anything comparing two states with total disregard of human rights

@val70


Yes, all too familiar: a Muslim country that won't leave a non-Muslim country alone.

I think the number of death penalties is a very indicative measure of the relative despotism of two states that have no regard for human rights.

@Thinkerbell Somehow you don't see that any people being victimised is just that, and has nothing to do at all with religion but everything with the abusive of power and the non-maintenance of international law, let along order. Moreover, a group of terrorists out of one particular country doing the deed of the century is much more conclusive as to what is really going on in their reigion than any number of death penalties there. If only you'd have said that the death penalties in Iran were against political opponents. But I'll end it here. Justice for all before the law, that's what there needs to be first

@val70


Once again, I doubt that 9-11 was a matter of Saudi national policy.
And 15 out of the 19 9-11 terrorists were indeed Saudi citizens, but of the 4 who weren't, the one in overall command was Mohamad Atta (from Egypt), and two of the other three leaders (all with pilot training) were from Lebanon and the UAE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks

And this should interest you:

"When Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait in 1990, bin Laden offered to support Saudi Arabia by sending his Mujahideen fighters. His offer was rebuffed by the Saudi government, which instead sought the aid of the United States. The stationing of U.S. troops in the Arabian Peninsula prompted bin Laden to declare a jihad against both the rulers of Saudi Arabia – whom he denounced as murtadd (apostates) – and against the US."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda


In a neighborhood like the Middle East, that's a rare commodity. Even peaceful Egypt and Jordan are not paragons of virtue in that regard.

I would say elimination of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah (or at least their funding) and a two-state solution should be first.

@Thinkerbell Once again, I'll say that when Iran will have regime change and everything falls into the Iraq mood of total disintegration there's not going to be peace. It's not just because the one neighbour is safe behind its walls that there's going to be peace and prosperity for all. Trump's plan for Gaza is total rubbish. For whom is the escalator in gold of use, you think? Moreover, I'm more than sure that the people who are really akin to the Armenians today will never beget a country of their own. Stupid people are supporting the one country that wants it all. And that's not Iran. Once illegal settlements aren't illegal any more and there's only a country for a people mentioned in a book centuries ago, well, that there will point to religious extremism. It's as simple a situation to analyse than apple cake. You don't even see the apple in apple cake

@val70


Not likely. The current Iraqi turmoil is mostly caused by the (roughly 60% - 40%) population split between Shia and Sunni Muslims. Iran is about 93% Shia, with only about 7% Sunni (mostly Kurds, speaking of oppressed minorities), so religious differences would not be a significant factor, except insofar as to whether or not a strict a form of Shia Islam should be a matter of government rule as it is now. I suspect that a large majority of the Iranian people are ready for something other than an islamofascist theocracy that sponsors terrorism all over the world as a matter of government policy.


Once again, you are overlooking the fact that Armenians do in fact have a country, and that it is their Muslim neighbors that engage in terror against them, even to the point of a genocide of over 1 million by the Turks about a century ago.

Nor do I agree that Palestinian Arabs will never have a state. One necessary step is the removal of the current Iranian terrorist regime. Without Iranian money, their proxies in Palestine and Lebanon will be neutralized, and saner heads can make a peace, as Egypt and Jordan have already done.


The "all" that the current regime in Iran wants is the total destruction of Israel, as they have been openly saying for decades.

@Thinkerbell First of all, and I think that you know this but seem to brush it aside, in Mid-July of last year the Knesset voted overwhelmingly a resolution in existance of rejecting the establishment of a Palestinian state. That's the state of Israel not wanting a state of Palestine to exist. What do they have to do more to make you belief that the so-called Two-state solution is non-existant now. It's yet again: a dead parrot. For a country without a constitution but a silly system of so-called basic laws because they're too scard to give full rights to everyone at the same time that's a total NO. Moving on, somehow after several polgroms in Turkey four ethnic minorities are still officially recognized: Armenians, Jews, Greeks, and Bulgarians. To outwardly homogenize the population, however, of the new Turkish Republic, the Surname Law of 1934 required all citizens to adopt Turkish-like last names. A similiar legal nastity in Israel against their own minority is going on right now and that is that the Arab language and culture is blocked out. Likewise, I'd like to point to a much similar nastiness, including amount of death sentences by the way, of the Iranian regime against yet again their own minorities. I don't know if you have any friends from there but if you think that the country wouldn't have an upheaval after a regime change operation, well, you're again wrong. It's not because there's not the religious situaties of Iraq that Iran won't turn out to be a disaster yet again either. Have a look at the minorities in Iran, and don't even think that there's a majority there for the re-establishment of the monarchy. The Iranian people has never been mentioned by those crazed people who want regime change yet again. Neither have the Palestinian people with their own culture been mentioned by them either. Just you have a look at the writings and podcasts of Christiane Amanpour whose family is partly out Iran. You need to inform yourself more

@val70


You have had a remarkable penchant for not telling the whole story in every point you have raised so far. This latest one about the Knesset vote is no exception.

"Lawmakers from Opposition Leader Yair Lapid’s center-left Yesh Atid party left the plenum to avoid backing the measure, even though he has spoken in favor of a two-state solution. The more left-leaning Labor Party followed suit. The only ones to oppose the resolution were lawmakers from the Arab-majority Ra’am and Hadash-Ta’al parties."

https://www.timesofisrael.com/knesset-votes-overwhelmingly-against-palestinian-statehood-days-before-pms-us-trip/

The "overwhelming vote" was 69-9. Netanyahu's coalition has 67 votes, and only 2 others joined with them to make the 69 'yes' votes on the resolution.

What you didn't mention is that there are 120 seats in the Knesset, and that the Center-Left and Left parties (51 seats in all) in effect abstained by leaving the plenum. They of course did not want to vote 'yes', but they did not dare vote 'no' such a short time after Hamas's terror acts of Oct 7, 2023; it would have cost them too many votes whenever there is another general election.


Wrong yet again, Val.
In fact, they have been mentioned by Netanyahu himself.

[media=https://youtu.be/t7HWgV2EZFc]


I remind you that "never" is a long time. I am equally sure that when a center-left coalition once again comes to power in Israel, and Hamas has been permanently put down, there will again be a 2-state solution offered, and hopefully this time, the Palestinians will have come to their senses.

@Thinkerbell Now that you bring in "Iran has the bomb" for thirty years already Netanyahu, I give up informing you. A vote in the Knesset is still a vote in the Knesset. You obviously don't know the impopularity of the left, let along even Lapid. I mean here that the left has a snow ball in hell's chance in bringing back the Two-states solution. Look at for example what Einat Wilf said and wrote about Judea and Samaria recently. She has consistently emphasized these days the imperative of taking action in the UN to dissolve UNRWA, contending that it perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem. The meaning behind that all is, of course, no return nor a seperate country for the Palestinians. Not even accepting that people are indeed in refugee camps since 1949 is already sign of never ever wanting to accept the past nor moving on. Even Benny Morris has back-tracked his recount of what happened in 1949 with the so-called ethnic cleansing then. Contrary, Sadat didn't want Gaza back but he did want a seperate settlement for the Palestinians. That's an entirely different attitude than was then already on offer in Israel and now even more so. Just check the famous Golda Meir thoughts on the Palestinians for that. The Golan Heights is yet another example of what the overall Israeli policy concerning their neighbours and safety is. It's what I call the walled-in strategy. A Palestinian state will never happen and there never will be anything else than walls concerning Israel. Afterall, it was written in a book centuries ago 🙄

@Thinkerbell The nature of more moderate governments is that they have to offer more liberal options (lets call it freedoms) to the people in exchange for their cooperation. Once an opposition arrises that tells these people "your freedom is a trap, come have our better true freedom" (in god or whatever) those people end up deciding who gets what freedom. Here is your gun, Here is your beer. Here is your pick up.. You're free.. Until you want to do something different..😷