To The Conversations That Abound

Submitted by abuzz on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 00:25

Conversations abound
about what's going around,
as thoughts of concilliation resound
in ways that presently confound..

How do I envision a world where love is found,
embellished and seen as it expounds,
and despite the hate present everywhere, rebounds,
as above all things, we hear of love - the sound?

----------------------------------Facebook_Response_On_My_Wall----------------------------------
Abbas Zaidi at 7:06pm January 13

You know I didn't want to say this, lest I be painted as some sort of an outcast or a destruction lover, but I believe we have to rise above the nastiness because it is quite obvious that those within the carnage aren't doing so. We have to do _exactly_ what we are expecting the other side, in this case the Israelis and the American Media, to do.

If you ask people on the other side of the divide, they will give you so many reasons for why they feel Israel is justified in its understandably overwhelming response, that you may feel helpless to go anywhere with the conversation. I acknowledge that it is unfair and it needs to stop, and I also find it to be deplorable, but that thinking _alone_ doesn't enable me to find common ground with those with whom I require a bridge of peace. A bridge is needed to scale the chasm that separates us and our differing understandings, and that bridge, by its very nature, demands that we see the situation from the other side because that is what we ask!

Sabahat Ashraf at 7:31pm January 13

Someone's gotta say it Abbas. But then, that's why I don't talk much about this topic; I have nothing constructive to add. But it is getting to time when some things need to be said.

And I don't know whether one can totemize "Peace"; Abbas. Peace can come in the form of the peace of the graveyard, too.

Arqam; I don't think that if we buy into the "punishing for electing Hamas". Don't forget that at one point the Israeli government used the same arguments and rhetoric ("No negotiating partner on the Palestinian side." "Terrorists we can't talk to." and so on) for the PLO and were actually, actively supporting Hamas in an effort to create a counterpoint to the PLO. Divide and rule at its "finest"!

----------------------------------Facebook_Response_On_My_Wall----------------------------------

Now what can I say to a neutral statement like this? It has lead the conversation to take turns that require engagement, yet I do not know what I can say that 'neutralizes' the points being raised, valid and worthy points to address. As in here: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=43813137103
Suggestions?

Comments

"there are fanatics on both

Submitted by cristele on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 21:04.

"there are fanatics on both sides and they are holding the rest of us hostage. ". Completely agreed. Few years ago, Corsica was claiming independance from France and Corsicans were "terrorists" (bombing and killing authorities, but also restaurants, so forth). Story made short, there was a referendum about getting some form of independance. Guess what: corsicans voted against. People who wanted independance are minority, and of course an even smaller percentage of this percentage are taking terrorist actions. Fanatics are not the maojority. They just make more noise/ are more violent. It's time the vast majority learns how to speak up against them, within each side, and to the other side.

Yes, both of you. My point,

Submitted by iFaqeer on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 03:01.

Yes, both of you.

My point, to some extent is that if we want to get past this mess, we need to stop thinking that everybody on both sides is evil and we need to admit that to move on. No; there are fanatics on both sides and they are holding the rest of us hostage. We need to wrest control of the discussion from our respective fanatics first and foremost. Which is why I have, up to now, avoided the topic--especially in terms of talking to people outside "my side". I felt we need to first work within "my team". But maybe we can--and must--do it in parallel and in tandem and thus strengthen each other--but it won't happen if we keep saying we are ALL to blame on both sides.

"You" being Abuzz and me?

Submitted by cristele on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 21:50.

"You" being Abuzz and me? I was confused (did I ever write "those within carnage"? I dont think my English is that good ...although "carnage" is French! (comes from latin "carne" meat in Spanish well easy to figure out the root).
Anyway....I didn't check out any of your link, yet. But I know one thing: every argument on one side of the fence will find its counter argument on the other side. At some point, we'd have to let go of it and come to talk about the present. Becasue for now, apart from going back and back further in History history to check "who was the first who" I don't see where the problem is getting solved *now*.
But hey this is from my stand point which is easy to make, being neither from one of the said countries nor from the said religion. Forgiving is hard to do even within your own family, it requires courage to heal your own wounds and stop blaming someone else for them.

Unpacking

Submitted by iFaqeer on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 15:27.

And just re-reading above, there is so much to unpack. Take the following phrases:

"those within the carnage"

At this point, because of the emotional investment and the fact that is is happening in "The Holy and/or Promised Land" covers every Jew and every Muslim on the planet.

"understandably overwhelming response"

That's where you will lose any chance of having any dialog with almost all Muslims on the planet.

"Like every war, it is getting ugly and like in every war, innocent people die first"

That I would characterize as buying into the argument made, most famously, by one Donald Rumsfeld. No. Civilized people do not agree. That's why we have the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture, for example. And the rules laid out by The Prophet of Islam are even stricter. I can provide the full list if you want; but there's nary an item on it that is not violated by the likes of Al Qaeda and Hamas on a daily basis. Here's my comment on Terrorism, for example:

http://ifaqeer.blogspot.com/2006/07/one-mans-terrorist.html

Hamas nurturing by Israel

Submitted by iFaqeer on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 15:05.

I will try to find the original statements from Israeli officials, but for now, a UPI article:

http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/2002/06/18/Analysis_Hamas_history_tied_to_Israel/UPI-82721024445587/2/

and this from an antiwar site:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8449

and

http://sanseverything.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/when-the-israeli-government-loved-hamas/

And by all means, don't just take a peacenik's word for it; follow the links.

As for what this War does to Hamas, take a look at:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/hamas-after-the-gaza-war

and listen to the Arab guest in the second half of this WNYC, New Public Radio, show segment:

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2009/01/12/segments/120768

Which is what drives the mythical anti-Islamist "moderate Muslims" nuts (hey! me and unicorns; we have much in common) because for 3 generations--since this type of neo-purist, post-colonial ideologies starting taking off in the Muslims world--we've been butting heads with the likes of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamat-i-Islami (in India/Pakistan) and too often "the West" has found it convenient to ally with them. [The other example from "living memory" would be when, in the efforts against the Soviets in Afghanistan, the then Islamist dictator of Pakistan (I too am a Pakistani), the Wahabi regime in Saudi Arabia and the US government (including the Carter/Brezhinski team; this isn't just a Republican thing) went out fo their way to support the most obscurantist/fanatic of the Afghans, labelling them "the Mujahideen". Look up Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, for example. And don't even get me started about how it was a Democratic president that made the original deal with the devil: it was FDR himself that got together with the founder of modern Saudi Arabia on an aircraft carrier right after WWII and caused the Middle East to look as it does today.

Sorry about the convulated language in that paragraph above. I will try to clean it up and post as an indepenent article when I can.

My post

Submitted by iFaqeer on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 14:42.

Actually, the note on FB is an import from a post on my blog. I will post it here, too, when I get a chance.

counterpoints-galore

Submitted by abuzz on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 14:10.

Very well said Cristele, and thank you for saying it. You were right, my attempt was to being concilliation between the two views, but now it has grown and gotten to a point that it requires a more thorough addressing of what has been said. I say that because the person saying this is a very well-respected blogger, and someone who I feel we need to engage because his statements and points are nothing if not balanced. The conversation that this exchange started has now become this note on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=43813137103

Frankly I wish this conversation was taking place here, because the forum is appropriate. But I'm glad it is happening _anywhere_. I just wish it is paid heed to at least read, if not responded to.

Beautiful words Abbas,

Submitted by cristele on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 00:27.

Beautiful words Abbas, really. Both in your comments and your post.
I don't really know what you can answer to Sabahat, who seems about right. I do remember when Israelis refused to talk to PLO. I don't really remember they were ever supporting the Hamas, I don't see how it would be possible since the Hamas does not recognize Israel, but hey I'm not an expert in this history.
Anyway. I think your point is not to really reply to the argument *itself* but how to conciliate 2 points of view of unfairness of the 2 sides statements?
Like every war, it is getting ugly and like in every war, innocent people die first (unarmed, unprepared, unawared, paniqued...I mean tons of reasons why civilans would be killed). I think recognizing and acknowledging the suffering of the other side would be a good start toward peace. "I know you are hurt, I acknowledge it and I heard your pain. Now please let me tell you mine." Forgiveness is hard to achieve and...especially in the middle of the battle.