Comments by "Sandy Tatham" (@sandytatham3592) on "Middle East Eye"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@coffeelover5134
Assimilation is a one-way process, where the minority culture adopts the practices, beliefs, and values of the dominant culture. It's a process of the refugees becoming 'similar' to the new culture. Is it possible for Muslims to assimilate when their own religious ideology is a total way of life, including a legal system? Islam doesn't encourage Muslims to become part of a non-Muslim culture, nor to befriend non-Muslims, so do you think that assimilation could be a problem for Muslims? It's fine to keep your own food, or language, so long as you also adopt the language of your new country, as well as its values and culture. Finally, if you are going to successfully assimilate, you don't keep agitating for your own culture to be accommodated in place of the one you've joined.
1
-
@coffeelover5134
You sound like a very #modern Muslim. That's great! And there's research to show that around one-quarter of Muslims born in the west eventually leave their religion or become 'cultural' Muslims only. But there is only one set of Islamic scriptures and a fairly literal interpretation of these scriptures is also valid. That's the problem. You are free to pick and choose what parts of Islam to uphold, but many Muslims stay strictly with the Islamic doctrine, and that leads to an inability to assimilate. These Muslims will continue to agitate for their right to have prayer places, halal food, the broadcasting of azhan, education along Islamic lines, gender segregation at times, dress with very visible religious symbols, etc. They are against freedom of speech when it comes to criticism of Islam. They want the right to have multiple wives, to divorce according to Sharia law, and to discipline their females as set out in the Qur'an. I see this as asking for "special treatment or privileges".
I agree that cultures are always changing and that's fine if it's considered a positive social #evolution by the majority of people of that culture. This isn't the case with a religious ideology that states it is 'the best, the final one' and which refuses to integrate and/or assimilate, but wants to dominate once it has gained a level of power. In the past, the invasion and occupation by Islam was by military power. Today it's by migration. If a Muslim wants to retain their own religious and legal practices, they should move to a country which already accommodates Islam.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alqudzz-9864 : In reply to your other comment: "ur forgetting who gave independence to who. Palestinians let u in. The zionists stabbed them in the back"...
The Zionists were granted the right to reconstitute their ancestral homeland in historic Palestine by the San Remo Conference of 1920. Remember that it was the Ottoman Caliphate which LOST the war? So it was the winners, the British, French, and Allies who controlled the decision-making process. The only condition for the Zionists to reclaim their ancestral land was that the current occupants of Palestine were to be given equality under the law and the freedom to practice their religion. You can see that the Zionists kept their part of the deal by seeing the hundreds of mosques and churches that exist in Israel today, and the fact that Arab Israelis sit in the Knesset, on the Supreme Court, in leadership positions in industry, education, health and banking, and they serve in security organisations. The Arab Israeli population has increased to over two million today, and forms one-fifth of Israel's total population.
It was the British who "stabbed the Zionists in the back" by giving away 74% of the British Mandate of Palestine to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. And it was the United Nations in 1947 who divided the land once again between Jews and Arabs. A resolution that the Arabs flatly refused, but Israel gladly accepted. Thankfully ALL of the land from the river to the sea, plus some of the Golan Heights, and minus the Gaza Strip, is back under the control of the #indigenous Jewish people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NikoBellaKhouf2 : In 1920 the League of Nations unanimously acknowledged that the Jews are #indigenous to the Holy Land and thus they were granted the right to reconstitute their ancestral home, with the proviso that other occupants of the land be given equal rights and freedom of religion, which all Arabs, Muslims, Christians, Circassians, Druze, and other minorities have today in Israel. The British Mandate of Palestine was set up in order to develop the region for transition to self-rule by the Jewish and Arab occupants. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was set up in 1923, occupied mostly by Arabs, and it comprised 77% of the Mandate area.
The Jews have had a continuous presence in the Holy Land for over 3000 years, and even during periods of displacement they have remained a unique group. There is hard evidence of the Jewish people having lived in that region by the tombs of their ancestors, thousands of places of worship, their coins, kings, specific language, written evidence by contemporary powers such as the Romans, and their religious traditions of saying "next year in Jerusalem" as just one example.
I also don't put any credence on any so-called 'holy books'. Though if I was a Muslim I would be obligated to accept the revelations in Qur'an Surah al-Ma'idah that say Allah has given the Holy Land to the children of Israel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rosestewart1606 : That's incorrect. When the Jewish people pledged their support to the British in the First World War they were promised that, if the Allied Powers were victorious over the Germans and Ottomans, they would have the chance to reconstitute their ancestral homeland, so long as all current occupants were given equal rights. Today all Israeli Arabs, Druze, Circassians, and other minorities, have equal rights with the Jewish people of Israel.
The Allied Powers WON the war in 1918 and the Ottoman Empire ceded its Middle East land to the British, French, etc. This is ALL well documented. At the 1920 San Remo Conference, The League of Nations unanimously voted to acknowledge the Jewish people as #indigenous to historic Palestine and the provisions of the Balfour Agreement were affirmed. When The League of Nations became the United Nations, that body also ratified the granting of the Jewish people the right to reconstitute their ancestral homeland because they were #indigenous to that land, having had a 'continuous connection' to it for over 3500 years. What don't you understand?
1
-
1
-
@meganbaker9116 : All Israeli citizens DO have equal rights under the law. Arabs Muslims sit in the Knesset, on the Supreme Court, and they serve in the IDF (if they choose) and security forces, as well as in all top positions in business, industry, health, education, etc. Of course there is still some discrimination, but find me one country in the world which doesn't battle some kind of discrimination based on caste, religion, race, gender, etc.
It's great to listen to those people whom you've quoted but please also listen to opposing voices if you want a broad education on this topic. And be mindful that words are used for manipulation. For example the definition of 'apartheid' has recently been changed to make Israel appear in a bad light, where it has been extended to those people who are not governed by Israel. The so-called Palestinians have their own leaders and their own laws. Another word which is used a lot is 'occupied' rather than 'disputed' land. Don't be blind to this manipulation and propaganda.
1
-
@martinportelance138 : Nations in wartime make all kinds of deals with allies. If the Jewish people hadn't sided with the British, WWI would probably not have been won by the Allied Powers. The Hejazi Arabs also sided with the British and they were promised land in the Middle East. When the Ottoman Caliphate was defeated, the British and French were under NO legal obligation to hand over the land to the occupants. But they did. Those Arab leaders who had sided with the British were granted self-rule in 99% of the carved-up Ottoman Middle East land, much of it rich in oil. Nothing for the #indigenous Kurds. Nothing for the #indigenous Assyrians. It was only the #indigenous Jews who were lucky to get a foothold in their own ancestral land because of their massive support to the war effort.
The Jews were acknowledged by the League of Nations in 1920 as the indigenous people of the Holy Land. They were given the chance to reconstitute their homeland in the area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, a mere 1% of the Ottoman Middle East land. The British later reneged on their promise to the Jews, mostly because of the belligerent Arabs in the area, many of whom had flooded in only AFTER the British and Zionists had created economic opportunities. But a proportion of Arabs accepted life in the Jewish state in 1948, and today one-fifth of Israeli citizens are Arabs who have 'equal rights and freedom of worship',
Israel should extend sovereignty over all of historic Palestine, and the Arab 'Palestinians' could be granted autonomy in the areas where they dominate. The Arabs have forfeited any right to their own state because they've never shown they would accept the Jewish state of Israel, nor have they demonstrated anything close to being able to form a government. They are corrupt, and it is more profitable for them to continue with terrorism against the Jews of Israel than to work towards creating a recognised state.
In 1918 there were NO international treaties which said the British and French couldn't KEEP any of the land that they had won in war. Wars are expensive and they sacrifice thousands of lives. Benjamin Freedman also said "the British never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine". Seeing as Palestine was a place of pilgrimage for thousands of British Christians, and the Crusades had been fought over taking the area back from the invading Muslims, he lost me with that totally ridiculous comment🙄. Israel has huge strategic and ideological value for both the UK and the US.
So is he implying that the British were fine to make deals with the Hejazi Arabs to win the war, but they shouldn't make any deals with the Zionist Jews regarding their ancestral homeland? What do you think?
1