Why so silent?

[classical_hero]

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/when-muslims-murder-palestinians/

Perhaps the silence regarding Palestinians in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East comes from a belief that it is only worth demonstrating when a Palestinian is killed by an Israeli. Even if that means throwing around words like massacre when there isn’t one and ignoring a real one while it happens.

We’re constantly told that the Israel Palestine conflict is what radicalises young Muslims in the West. So what happens when those radicalised Muslims from the West start beheading Palestinians while wearing the uniform of the Islamic State?

Apparently nothing at all.

Where are the all the protests that erupted last year? Where are the emergency security council session condemning the actions? Apparently when Israel can't be blamed, there is no point in complaining, even a group called http://www.palestinecampaign.org/ is silent n the issue. So much for being the voice for all Palestinians.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Its called misdirected hatred / misdirected outrage.

 

[Antilogic]

Where are the all the protests that erupted last year? Where are the emergency security council session condemning the actions? Apparently when Palestine can't be blamed, there is no point in complaining, even a group called http://www.israelcampaign.org/ is silent n the issue. So much for being the voice for all Israelis.

 

[Borachio]

It is strange, I agree.

And it's often overlooked that those same Palestinians (the ones that have lived that long; or their descendants) have been living in that refugee camp in Syria since 1948.

I wonder why they were refugees in the first place.

Hmm. Where did they come from?

I've no idea.

 

[Tahuti]

And it's often overlooked that those same Palestinians (the ones that have lived that long; or their descendants) have been living in that refugee camp in Syria since 1948.

The Palestinians are probably of Jewish descent. If they just returned to Judaism or secularise, they would probably be able to return to Israel. A fair deal. In many ways, the Israel-Palestinian conflict is just a Jewish civil war, with Rabbinical and Secular Jews who are the Israelis, and Muslim and Orthodox Christian Jews who are the Palestinians.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't know if we're being as silent. My country is conducting military strikes against ISIS.

There's less rage, I'll grant. And yeah, it smells of hypocrisy

 

[Tigranes]

I was watching the Silence of the Lambs yesterday night...

 

[Tigranes]

The Palestinians are probably of Jewish descent. If they just returned to Judaism or secularise, they would probably be able to return to Israel. A fair deal. In many ways, the Israel-Palestinian conflict is just a Jewish civil war, with Rabbinical and Secular Jews who are the Israelis, and Muslim and Orthodox Christian Jews who are the Palestinians.

This was deep.

Spoiler :

 

[Antilogic]

The Israelis are probably of Palestinian descent. If they just returned to Islam or secularise, they would probably be able to return to Palestine. A fair deal. In many ways, the Israel-Palestinian conflict is just an Islamic civil war.

 

[Samson]

I am not sure what you mean by silent, but I have seen this story on the news here quite a bit.

 

[Tahuti]

This was deep.

Spoiler :

Turks are partially of Armenian descent!

 

[Borachio]

The Palestinians are probably of Jewish descent. If they just returned to Judaism or secularise, they would probably be able to return to Israel. A fair deal. In many ways, the Israel-Palestinian conflict is just a Jewish civil war, with Rabbinical and Secular Jews who are the Israelis, and Muslim and Orthodox Christian Jews who are the Palestinians.

Oh, I certainly agree.

In fact, I'd say all wars are civil wars in any case.

Even more ironically, the differences amongst Judaism, Christianity and Islam are minute. At least, to an outside observer.

I am not sure what you mean by silent, but I have seen this story on the news here quite a bit.

The "silence" in this case, I think, is referring to the lack of public demonstrations on the streets about this issue.

I'm not quite sure what effect public demonstrations actually have. But that's probably beside the point.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't know if we're being as silent. My country is conducting military strikes against ISIS.

There's less rage, I'll grant. And yeah, it smells of hypocrisy

Yea, the question isn't really "Will we try to directly kill members of ISIS?" We're already doing that. The question is, "How are we going to go about it and on what scale?" Especially in the light of the last 20 years, I can't imagine many rational and caring people being super jazzed about the prospect. I'd already heard about this story on my local NPR station, it's being covered. The massacre in Kenya is being covered right now too. Don't worry CH, if a suitably sympathetic target bleeds in the American heartland you'll get to see the Kill Everyone in the Middle East with Nuclear Weapons crowd fire up again. Dead Israeli's aren't sufficient to do that either, it's probably a proximity issue. Africa feels far away. Syria feels far away.

 

[Tahuti]

Even more ironically, the differences amongst Judaism, Christianity and Islam are minute. At least, to an outside observer.

Well, the differentiation between these religions is for political reasons. However, I suspect the reason why the Islamic world nowadays so vigorously oppose Israel is because its existence poses an existential problem for Islam: If the Palestinians start to view themselves as Jews and reconcile with Israel, what will stop the Lebanese from adopting Ancient Phoenician religion, or Moroccans from adopting Berber religion? Or Iranians from becoming Zoroastrians again? Maybe they discover it is actually a lot cooler to be one of those than to be Muslim. Idem dito for Pan-Arabism: It should be no surprise that Egypt distanced itself from Pan-Arabism and became more Egyptian, emphasising its lineage with the Pharaoh's, when it recognised Israel in 1979.

Either Islam will outlive the state of Israel, or the other way around. One of them will be a casualty, either way.

 

[thecrazyscot]

You can ask the same question as to why "black-on-black" violence in the US isn't prevalent in the media. It's the same in innumerable examples.

When there's violence between two different groups, for some reason it's bigger news than when there's violence within a "group" (however artificially or broadly outsiders define the group).

It's sad

Even more ironically, the differences amongst Judaism, Christianity and Islam are minute. At least, to an outside observer.

Well, the differentiation between these religions is for political reasons.

No. Maybe to an outside observer, but to a follower of any of these religions it's insulting to claim there are no real, significant differences between them.

 

[Borachio]

Indeed. I freely acknowledge that.

But then again, the Big-endians and the Little-endians similarly thought their differences highly significant, and were quite prepared to kill each other over them.

Doesn't make it any the less ironic, imo.

Is it any less or more tragic though? Is it better to kill someone over a real or imagined difference?

 

[Tahuti]

No. Maybe to an outside observer, but to a follower of any of these religions it's insulting to claim there are no real, significant differences between them.

While I may have oversimplified my response - cultural reasons play a part as well - the real theological differences have been intertwined with politics. As someone who isn't exactly an atheist, theological differences have walked hand in hand with political rivalry.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Indeed. I freely acknowledge that.

But then again, the Big-endians and the Little-endians similarly thought their differences highly significant, and were quite prepared to kill each other over them.

Doesn't make it any the less ironic, imo.

Is it any less or more tragic though? Is it better to kill someone over a real or imagined difference?

It's certainly not less tragic, I would say it's better not to kill at all, in which I feel we are in firm agreement

While I may have oversimplified my response - cultural reasons play a part as well - the real theological differences have been intertwined with politics. As someone who isn't exactly an atheist, theological differences have walked hand in hand with political rivalry.

I certainly agree that theological motivations and political motivations can and have become very tightly intertwined. But that doesn't lessen the (very deep) theological differences between the religions. There are fundamental differences in the understanding of the nature of God, the standard of morality, and approach to "non-believers" that have very real and significant consequences in the real world and how the respective believers live their lives.

I'm not trying to start an argument with either of you , but I just wanted to point out that while there are some religious differences which are minute and overblown, there are also religious differences which are real and fundamental, which may be easy to see as silly if you're not of a religious mindset.

 

[Borachio]

In the case of Judaism and Islam, I'd say the differences aren't even either real or fundamental. That's my point.

 

[Tahuti]

In the case of Judaism and Islam, I'd say the differences aren't even either real or fundamental. That's my point.

Well, Islam has a very strong view of the afterlife (i.e. heaven and hell) unlike Judaism, where a variety of viewpoints exists. Then, there is also Muhammad.