Obama and Jordan's king propose peace plan for Israel

[bascule]

The proposed "57 state solution" would have the entire Muslim world recognize Israel (and I guess its right to exist?):

 

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1084660.html

 

Could it work? I have my doubts about countries like Iran...

 

(Edit: Bleh, title should read Jordan's king)

[jackson33]

The Six-Day War of June 5-10, 1967 was a war between Israel and the armies of the neighboring states of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. In Arabic, the war is called (Arabic: حرب الأيام الستة‎, Ḥarb al‑Ayyam as‑Sitta or more commonly Arabic: حرب 1967‎, Ḥarb 1967. In Hebrew: מלחמת ששת הימים‎, Milhemet Sheshet Ha‑Yamim). It is also known as the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, the Third Arab-Israeli War, Six Days' War, an‑Naksah (The Setback), or the June War. The Arab states of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria also contributed troops and arms to the Arab forces.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

-----------------------------

Since the nineteenth century, many Muslims had aspired to uniting the Muslim ummah to serve their common political, economic, and social interests. Despite the presence of secularist, nationalist, and socialist ideologies, in modern Muslim states, together they have cooperated together to form the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. The formation of the OIC happened in the backdrop of the loss of Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem. The final cause sufficiently compelled leaders of Muslim nations were to meet in Rabat to establish the OIC on September 25, 1969.[1]

 

Chad, Republic of 1969 Egypt, Arab Republic of 1969 Suspended May 1979 - March 1984 Guinea, Republic of 1969 Indonesia, Republic of 1969 Iran, Islamic Republic of 1969 Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of 1969 Kuwait, State of 1969 Lebanon, Republic of 1969 Libya, Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 1969 Malaysia 1969 Mali, Republic of 1969 Mauritania, Islamic Republic of 1969 Morocco, Kingdom of 1969 Niger, Republic of 1969 Pakistan, Islamic Republic of 1969 Palestine, represented by the Palestine Liberation Organisation 1969 Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of 1969 Senegal, Republic of 1969 Sudan, Republic of the 1969 Somalia 1969 Tunisia, Republic of 1969 Turkey, Republic of 1969 Yemen Arab Republic 1969 From 1990 as Republic of Yemen united with People's Democratic Republic of Yemen Bahrain, State of 1970 From 2003 as Kingdom of Bahrain Oman, Sultanate of 1970 Qatar, State of 1970 Syrian Arab Republic 1970 United Arab Emirates, State of 1970 Sierra Leone, Republic of 1972 Bangladesh, People's Republic of 1974 Gabon, Republic of 1974 Gambia, Republic of the 1974 Guinea-Bissau, Republic of 1974 Uganda, Republic of 1974 Burkina Faso 1975 Cameroon, Republic of 1975 Comoros, Federal Islamic Republic of the 1976 Iraq, Republic of 1976 Maldives, Republic of 1976 Djibouti, Republic of 1978 Benin, Republic of 1982 Brunei Darussalam, Sultanate of 1984 Nigeria, Federal Republic of 1986 Azerbaijan, Republic of 1991 Albania, Republic of 1992 Kyrgyzstan, Republic of 1992 Tajikistan, Republic of 1992 Turkmenistan, Republic of 1992 Mozambique, Republic of 1994 Kazakhstan, Republic of 1995 Uzbekistan, Republic of 1995 Suriname, Republic of 1996 Togo, Republic of 1997 Guyana, Republic of 1998 Côte d'Ivoire, Republic of 2001

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_the_Islamic_Conference

-------------------------------------------------

 

bascule, my thoughts....

 

The entire OIC is based on the idea, Israel is responsible for the loss of the Islamic Holy Lands and that will NEVER be accepted in any part, as a solution for peace or the recognition of the cause (Jewish/Israel) as anything near an equal....IN MY OPINION. Then member by member, your talking about split demographics of religious concepts or clergy preaching of Islam itself, not to mention the stability of any one member. Though not vital to the discussion, the WESTERN CULTURE itself is the target of the 'Islamic Brotherhood' a vital component of the OIC, again not to mention (Western Governments) the support of the Jewish States right to exist.

 

 

I understand the idea of an American President, with an Islamic/Arabic name, with heritage in the Islamic World itself has encouraged an American Media, then Public, into believing this acceptance of Israel could now be possible. It's my understanding (am not Islamic) that to the clergy of this religion, can only accept Obama as an Infidel, having left or never joined his ancestral Islamic roots.

 

Then, Benjamin Netanyahu;

Prime Minister of Israel 1996-1999 and recently re-elected PM, was raised a hard line historian of the Jewish people and the State of Israel (fathers Teachings), with no less religious convictions on territorial rights of his people, currently and apparently the majority of those living in Israel.

---------------------------------------

Benjamin Netanyahu - soldier, diplomat and the ninth Prime Minister of the State of Israel - was born in Tel Aviv in 1949 and grew up in Jerusalem. He spent his adolescent years in the United States, where his father - a noted historian - taught Jewish history.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/State/Benjamin+Netanyahu.htm

--------------------------------------

 

It would be my hope, if nothing else, that the US and other involved Governments would manipulate a number of the OIC States (coerced with aid) to follow a program that allows more time to bring the Islamic PEOPLE, into the 21st century, with out any additional waring. I DO NOT think Iran is intent of developing Nuclear Weapons to use, rather to increase their influence over these and future negotiations. However, I fear Israel, possibly the US (with or w/o Obama) will not allow this, condoning an Israel response.

 

All this said, it has long been my fear the real pending world problem between Islam and non-Islamics is in Pakistan. This has been brewing for hundreds (maybe 1400) of years, at an even a greater pace since the establishment/independance of Pakistan and India from England in 1946. It's not a pretty history...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan

[Pangloss]

I understand the idea of an American President, with an Islamic/Arabic name, with heritage in the Islamic World itself has encouraged an American Media, then Public, into believing this acceptance of Israel could now be possible. It's my understanding (am not Islamic) that to the clergy of this religion, can only accept Obama as an Infidel, having left or never joined his ancestral Islamic roots.

 

Extremists don't need to trump up reasons to hate Obama -- they'll find them. But your point doesn't apply to many moderate Muslims at all, IMO. If it did they'd have to excommunicate (or whatever they do) every Muslim who emigrated to America. AT&T would probably go out of business tomorrow (just kidding).

[padren]

The entire OIC is based on the idea, Israel is responsible for the loss of the Islamic Holy Lands and that will NEVER be accepted in any part, as a solution for peace or the recognition of the cause (Jewish/Israel) as anything near an equal....IN MY OPINION. Then member by member, your talking about split demographics of religious concepts or clergy preaching of Islam itself, not to mention the stability of any one member. Though not vital to the discussion, the WESTERN CULTURE itself is the target of the 'Islamic Brotherhood' a vital component of the OIC, again not to mention (Western Governments) the support of the Jewish States right to exist.

 

I think hard line religious views do make it harder, but the real issue is what is viewed as in the best interests of the clergy. If they feel keeping Israel as a splinter and 'common pain' to unify their following - they will remain hard line or push harder. If they are sick of the limitations caused by maintaining such a hard line stance and the volatile liabilities that come with it - they may welcome a means to save face and get past the issue. Call me jaded but I don't think you can be a successful religious politician without learning to play the fence and steer your "written in stone" absolutist stances to the populous, and at the same time steer the populous to what you feel is the most advantageous unmovable truth.

[jackson33]

Pangloss;

Excommunication, the Catholic term used to disenfranchise a member, are not normally in Countries Ruled by religious text. Sharia law, is based on the Koran and the legal system of many of the Islamic States. When you get down to individual Clergy (Mullah's) or in fact an interpretation of the Koran (ie the law) the stories range in both direction with no noticeable consistency;

----------------------

I responded, "So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can go to Heaven. Is that correct?"

The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He sheepishly replied, "Yes."

http://www.omeriqbal.com/a/21

 

Every non-Muslim is an "Infidel" according to the interpretation of Islam by the Mullahs. This is because according to Islam --- every human child when born is inherently a Muslim, as it is in a mentally unpolluted pure state. Only when grows to be a non Muslim, he / she loses purity of mind and hence becomes an infidel.

http://www.moralgroup.com/NewsItems/Islam/p2.htm

----------------

Two opposite views on interpretation, but keep in mind my problem is when Rule/Law and Government is based on an inconsistent interpretation of religious text.

 

 

If you noted the point of my 'hoped for solution', was the stalling of aggression. Obviously, all Muslims are not and do not agree with the MAJORITY of the Clergy. It is my belief (Clergy), even in the US a good percentage remain hard line toward rule/governing/living under the Koran, but that some are showing signs of moderating these position, including the disdain for Western Culture.. On the other side, you have the Jewish with just as much interest/history in 'Holy Land' territory from their Clergy, which over time should moderate.

 

The only reason to "hate" Obama or the current Administration by any reasonable faction of society, falls under policy, then hating would be a stretch. Since I am what's called a conservative (small Federal Government, less taxes, a practitioner and believer in the Capitalist System) the current administration, I'll assume you feel I am an 'extremist'. From where I set, extremism is Obama (important>) or his Administration and the crop of people that have entered government, IMO with an agenda, opposed to most things I earnestly believe in.....

 

padren; I think we basically agree....on the religious aspects of the problem or its resolution.

[Pangloss]

Pangloss;

Excommunication, the Catholic term used to disenfranchise a member, are not normally in Countries Ruled by religious text. Sharia law, is based on the Koran and the legal system of many of the Islamic States. When you get down to individual Clergy (Mullah's) or in fact an interpretation of the Koran (ie the law) the stories range in both direction with no noticeable consistency;

 

And how often does that really happen? You were talking about mainstream Muslims, suggesting that they commonly see Obama as an infidel. The above response is a distraction that does not support that point.

 

This is an example of what I'm talking about in the other thread about widening a subject as a dodge away from the issue that was being discussed. If you can't support your point, just move on. Do not confuse the issue. If you want to talk about Sharia law, you can start a thread on that subject. That is not what we were discussion, you and I, and it does not pertain to your point, which was about general Muslim opinion, not law.

[bascule]

Jordan's king today urged Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept a two state solution.

[iNow]

Jordan's king today urged Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept a two state solution.

 

Just as an FYI... He's been doing that for many years now, as was his father (the previous king) during the 60s and 70s. Those guys seem to have a very clear understanding of what is practical and what is needed. Cheers.

[jackson33]

This is an example of what I'm talking about in the other thread about widening a subject as a dodge away from the issue that was being discussed. If you can't support your point, just move on. Do not confuse the issue. If you want to talk about Sharia law, you can start a thread on that subject. That is not what we were discussion, you and I, and it does not pertain to your point, which was about general Muslim opinion, not law.

 

If you bothered to read my post, all HUMANS born, according to Islam are Muslim, for the record includes you. Where you were never exposed to Mullah teachings, moderate members would take this into consideration and where Obama WAS exposed, they may not consider and become the worst of infidels. My point, if you really care, is that though named Barrack Hussein Obama, the Islamic Societies (under Sharia Law, which defines infidel) may not accept his message, any more than they would Bush II or Carter.

 

Now, I am going to introduce supporting material into bascule's thread after the visit of the current Pope and his opinions (mentioned yesterday), which will not be introducing the Bible or British Common law into the post.

----------------------------------

Published: 5/15/09, 9:25 AM EDT

By MATTI FRIEDMAN

JERUSALEM (AP) - Pope Benedict XVI ended his pilgrimage to the Holy Land on Friday with his strongest call yet for the creation of a Palestinian state and telling the faithful at the site of Jesus' crucifixion that peace is possible.

"Let it be universally recognized that the state of Israel has the right to exist, and to enjoy peace and security within internationally agreed borders," the pope said on the tarmac of Tel Aviv's airport before boarding the plane for Rome. "Let it be likewise acknowledged that the Palestinian people have a right to a sovereign independent homeland."

"Let the two-state solution become a reality, not remain a dream," Benedict said.

------------------------------------

 

This, too, was rejected by the two communities. So after thirty years of trying to implement the constantly reinterpreted Balfour Declaration, and to solve the constantly convoluted Arab—Jewish problem of Palestine, Britain, on April 2, 1947, took the matter to the United Nations, And on November 29, 1947 the General Assembly recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state.

The Jews accepted the recommendation, even though it gave them no control over the Holy City of Jerusalem, which was to be governed by the United Nations as a separate entity. The Arabs did not, despite the fact that Israel's Declaration of Independence, proclaimed on May 14, 1948, after the British left Palestine, contained these clauses:

 

'WE APPEAL — in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months — to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.'

'WE EXTEND our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.'

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/02/how_the_israelpalestine_proble.html

---------------------------------------------------

bascule;

 

The 'American Thinker' article is a VERY good historical explanation of how and why the two state theory developed, adding the 2,367 misconceptions of the general public on what reality on this issue, IMO. I have copied the most relevant point, in that the UN in 1947, with the approval of ALL allied forces (spoils of war victory) agreed to and THAT ISRAEL UNCONDITIONALLY accepted, that the Palestinians (under any definition) have not. Apparently Pope Benedict XVI, having lived through a good deal of the history, certainly since the UN efforts, has forgotten. Said another way, IMO if the Palestinians generally the non-Jewish Arabs of the time had accepted the offer for an independent State, or through the years 'Incorporated Gaza into a State or under a number of other scenarios, this issue could have been resolved or never been an issue.

 

One of the sticking point, May 10th 2009;

--------------------

The King yesterday sidestepped reports that he had been asked by the Americans to clarify the Arab proposals on making East Jerusalem the capital of a Palestinian state and the Palestinian right of return, the two most contentious issues in Israel. Mr Netanyahu has frequently said these were not negotiable.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6261925.ece

--------------

 

iNow; It goes a tiny bit further back than his Dad, like 43 generations of direct family rule, although the Monarchy was set up in 1946;

---------------

His Majesty King Abdullah II is the 43rd generation direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad. King Abdullah assumed his constitutional powers as King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on February 7,1999, the day his father, the late King Hussein, passed away.

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/king_abdullah2.html

---------------

He became King on his Fathers death;

--------------

His Majesty King Abdullah II Ibn Al Hussein is the 43rd generation direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him). He assumed his constitutional powers as Monarch of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on February 7th, 1999, the day his father, the late King Hussein, passed away.

http://www.kingabdullah.jo/main.php?main_page=0&lang_hmka1=1

--------------

And King Hussein of Jordan ruled from 1952.

 

Though my mention of bringing the Islamic World into the 21st Century has been accepted as insane, even King Hussein, who was instrumental in Israels problem to exist from day one, he apparently raised a family that was acceptable to Democracy. Jordan's current ruler of Dubai and the leaders of the Six State United Arab Emirates (a second wife who is King Hussein's daughter and the current Jordan's king half sister, Princess Haya) are both known advocates for democracy and might add a capitalist society, with limits.

--------------

Education

Princess Haya studied in Britain, where she attended Badminton School for Girls in Bristol, Bryanston School in Dorset and later St Hilda's College, Oxford University, from which she graduated with a BA Honours degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics

[iNow]

iNow; It goes a tiny bit further back than his Dad, like 43 generations of direct family rule, although the Monarchy was set up in 1946;

Since my point was that both he and his father have been proposing a two state solution for quite a long time, I presume your point is to suggest that the two state solution has been being proposed for 43 generations of Jordanian rule, even before Israel ever existed. Interesting logic, that. Not sure how it is you missed my point, as it was clear as day, but whatever.

[Pangloss]

Jackson33, please provide evidence that the average Muslim seems Obama as an infidel, unworthy of attention or respect.

 

Or state that that is not your position.

 

Please use complete, clear sentences when you do this.