A network for peace in the Middle East

Comment

Comment by Ola on February 17, 2009 at 12:15am

Change is possible as long as there is enough people willing to interact peacefully together. Free must we all interact, muslims, christians, jews, buddhists, atheists or any kind of group belongin or individual. What does it mean to be human on earth, I'm nor really sure. Happyness is our true source of expression. The Isreal-palestinian conflict is a good representation of the whole conflict in the world, if bave souls from this part of the world (Israel/Paelstina) could cooperate I would truly believe in the power of the human spirit. With hope in my heart- Ola.

Comment by Humanity Healing Foundation on February 15, 2009 at 7:52pm

“I BELIEVE that while governments make treaties, individuals make Peace.”
~ Christopher Buck


Please visit our Blogspot for the first two parts of "Islam's Gandhi".

http://www.humanity-healing.blogspot.com/

Our friend request here on Ning does not seem to be working well. If you haven’t seen one from us, please send us one! :-)

Much Metta,
Humanity Healing Team

Comment by RAINBOW BADGER WOMAN on February 15, 2009 at 6:27pm

Comment by BEARWOLFENBLUE on February 13, 2009 at 9:33am

Comment by Nicolette on February 12, 2009 at 1:46pm

Yes, I do believe Islam is compatible with democracy.

The New York Times is doing a series, Generation Faithful, on democratic developments in Jordan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/world/middleeast/24voices.html

I suppose this is at least related somehow to a network for peace in the region. I remember reading that after the UN res 181, Jordan was given control of the Palestinians and they were to have Jordanian passports..

I was interested to read in this New York Times series that the young are turning to religion basically in protest against corrupt democracy and wasta..

With sincere wishes for a good peace network in the region..

Comment by Nicolette on February 12, 2009 at 1:22pm

Thank you for your insight Dr. Mahmood.

I agree to this: "With the Muslims leading the way, we must strive to make a better world for the Palestinians."

It is a regional conflict involving many countries who have Palestinian refugee camps, so I do think that the other muslim countries involved do have a moral duty to help the Palestinians somehow.

I think of democracy as secular and political, not necessarily religous though. But of course democracy demands that the people get to choose..

regards

Comment by Mohammad Abdur Rehman Asif on February 12, 2009 at 9:18am

Dear All Respectable members,

I just want to add that Peace full and prosper Arab is in the favor of the whole world. & mine this point of view is same for every part of this world where ever conflict, deprivation and in justice prevails. I hope we all will spread this sort of thoughts around, and in real terms do some thing to bring peace and stability around.
Cheers,
A.R.Asif

Comment by shabbir ahmad on February 12, 2009 at 1:19am

I think problem of palestine should be dealt with in different steps, before palestinians could have a state, they should be given basis human rights, those human rights should be given and protected by uno " international community" then the next step would be of an independent state.at the moment palestinians are not in a position to negociate. Successful negociations can take place when both parties are equal. Our first step should be that palestinians should be recognized as human being first. they should be treated as human being by all countries who surround them.
shabbir

Comment by Nicolette on February 11, 2009 at 6:19pm

This discussion is very constructive with very knowledgable participants. In light of some of the recent comments and questions about the historical background, I was wondering if Dr. Mahmood could comment on the partition of India in 1947. There are some similarities that might be worth considering, namely that Mandatory Palestine and India were "let go" in about the same year and time period. India or Pakistan chose for a two--state solution and the partition was quite bloody but it happened.

I'll include this link by a refugee from Quetta that I saved last year as a reference:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2271179.ece
On the other hand, Britain claimed it could find no solution to it's mandate on Palestine and asked the UN to intervene. After a lot of discussion the UN did rule with res 181. Everyone knew there would be problems and both sides Jewish Agency and Arabs couldn't agree. After the war in 1967, UN res (244?) called for a Palestinian Reconciliation Commission headed by the US, France, and Turkey. But that commission could also not complete it's mandate.

How is it that India and Pakistan separated with a two-state solution and Pakistan has a state, but Israel and Palestine have not been able to reconcile, despite all UN intervention?

Dr. Mahmood do you see any parallels and can you or anyone comment? I am sincerely curious have posed this question before on another forum, with not much luck.

Anxiously awaiting some interesting response...thanks.

Peace

Comment by James L. Foster on February 11, 2009 at 5:42pm

In reference to Father Harak's observation, I stand corrected--partially. If one is to believe the Old Testament accounts the divisions between Israelis and Arabs go back a long time. It may indeed be the case that relationships were much better half a century ago but I suspect having a Palestinian nanny may have been somewhat like the century old relationship between American Caucasians and American Negros--providing menial serices, living together separately but not equal. The present conflict did not arise out of thin air. It had its precedent in prejudice and bigotry. Until that is somehow dealt with anu other measures for peace are window dressing.

Jim

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page