Can Arab/Muslim Countries Criticize Israel Under the UN Anti-Blasphemy Resolution?

[oberliner]

Excerpt:

As the debate to make the anti-defamation legislation a legally binding treaty gets underway this week, how do the Arab/Muslim countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference plan to continue their criticism of the Israeli occupation and settlement expansion without, in a way, violating their own proposed resolution?

Are they open to the likelihood that their proposed assault on the freedom of speech of others also potentially curtails their own? Does victimhood take on a new definition when applied to the child brides of Saudi Arabia or the allegedly adulterous women stoned to death in Somalia compared to the victims of the bombings in Gaza last year?

Finally, is criticism of Quranic passages and Sunnah equivalent to criticism of passages in the Torah in the eyes of the UN Human Rights Council? Both books are believed to be the word of God by their adherents, and both prescribe capital punishment for blasphemy by stoning (Vayikra/Leviticus, 24:16) or beheading (Quran, 8:12 and several hadith). Who decides where to draw the line?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/can-arabmuslim-countries_b_337358.html

[Violet_Crumble]

1. Criticism of Israel has got nothing to do with any anti-blasphemy resolution...

Thankfully it's not idiots like that guy who get to draw the line....

on edit: Do you have anything on this from someone who's a bit more credible than this guy? Given what I've seen now of other things he's written, I think it's very sensible not to take as gospel what this guy claims when it comes to what others say...

[sam sarrha]

2. the Sunnah is the key to understanding Islam... so now people cant discuss it..??, so no one will

find out whats in it.. like Abrogation of early Koranic verses. it is simply their own recorded history, and simply censorship....sweet

[Violet_Crumble]

3. No-one said people can't discuss any religion...

I'm curious. Do you consider yr posts at DU about Muslims to be *discussion*?

[sam sarrha]

30. it was early, had to get to work.. i meant non-Muslims/Jews/Xings in general, , and there

can be no discussion here on the subject of Islam.. i regret that transgression. i only commented on the No Blasphemy declaration, not limited to Islam... that's a pretty broad brush.

so if in defense of keeping the Ten Commandments, etc, out of the public schools here, Canada or in the EU and one were to say something like..,"i don't believe it appropriate to subject other peoples children to Bronze Age Superstitions.." would that be Blasphemy? of course saying anything that a religious person simply disagrees with is blasphemy. instant Theocracy. i grew up in a Christian Fundamentalist Extremist Cult. i know what they are capable of.. i have the scars to prove it. they want to run everybody's life, and hurt anyone who doesn't like it. once a blasphemy law is in place it only follows there will soon be punishment to follow ant transgression. this is the seeds of thought police .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy
"snip...Blasphemy is the use of reference to one or more gods in a manner considered objectionable by a religious authority...snip"

well... that pretty much says it all, the religious side of any discussion wins by default, you cant say anything about religion that someone disagrees with without Blasphemy, or someone saying it is. losing before it begins. who ever slipped that by knew what they were doing. Carl Rove couldn't have done better.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

5. this is a consistent position from the OIC.....they initiated Goldstone mandate to only investigate

Israel and not Hamas....and after all was said and done despite Goldstone's very lame attempt at changing the mandate - which never changed BTW but Goldstone continued nevertheless - they got their way.

OIC initiated Goldstone inquiry
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/10/20091021112649368100.html

No wonder there's no condemnation of Hamas.

There can't be.

The OIC won't allow for it and the UN agreed.

Only Israel can and should be criticized and condemned - for all things real or imagined - anything Muslim related is impervious to criticism.

Because the OIC says so.

==========

Now which lobby is really running the UN and human rights agenda on all that's I/P?

:eyes:

The "Israel Lobby" is no match for the OIC.

[azurnoir]

6. thats nice and all but to my knowledge

no one has claimed the "Israel Lobby" is running the UN and human rights agenda the claim about the Israel Lobbies alleged control or "undue influence" pertain to the foreign policy pertaining to the Middle East in the US

[shira]

8. the OIC is running the UN agenda on I/P.....you're okay with that?

it's not enough that the OIC via the UN focuses mainly (not exclusively) on imaginary Israeli human rights violations - but they ensure via some crooked legislation that human rights violations against Arabs and Muslims under Arab/Muslim rule (affecting some 300-400 million people) are never dealt with.

Believe it or not, this bothers liberals who aren't focused obsessively on all that's wrong - real or imagined - with Israel.

[azurnoir]

10. I was answering your last statement

Now which lobby is really running the UN and human rights agenda on all that's I/P?

:eyes:

The "Israel Lobby" is no match for the OIC.

which is incorrect

and you are claiming that Israel's human rights violations are all imaginary? That's as much a surprise as it is factual

[shira]

11. but you're wrong even WRT that claim

let's suppose the "Israel Lobby" is everything W&M claim...so what? Whatever they do is nothing in comparison with what the OIC has accomplished.

I wrote "real or imagined", mainly but not exclusively imaginary violations.

[azurnoir]

12. the OIC has very little influence inside of the US

and seeing as how the US has veto power within the UN and has a history of vetoing any actual sanctions or other actions against Israel the influence of the OIC is quite neutered when it comes any actual actions, the end result is and has been simply words on paper that Israel ignores and its supporters whine about

[indjouro]

14. When was the last time you visited Israel

outside of Tel Aviv? Imaginary violations? Go visit Jerusalem or Bil'in. Ofer Prison. South Hebron. Gaza -- oh wait, you can't go to Gaza but the Israel military doesn't let outsiders in. Imaginary? That is plain intellectual dishonesty.

[oberliner]

15. Do you have a response to the OP?

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on it.

Should human rights violations be subject to UN discussion even if they may offend religious sensibilities?

What is your opinion of the OIC sponsored resolution?

[shira]

16. did you read the criticisms on the Goldstone Report? they'll give you a really good idea...

...of imaginary violations and crimes.

Here are some links for you...

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Initial-response-goldstone-report-24-Sep-2009.htm
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1736
http://www.goldstonereport.org/

========

take some time to go through this and then let's talk intellectual dishonesty, okay?

========

and I never meant all criticism of Israel is based on imaginary crimes or violations - but much is, as you'll find out if you read the links above. Realize that Amnesty, HRW, etc. are 100% behind the report.

[LeftishBrit]

20. These aren't objective sources, any more than those on the other side

The first is from the Israeli foreign ministry. Obviously they would defend the actions of Israel - it's their job. Of course their views should be considered (everyone should have the right to presumption of innocence and to speak on their own behalf in court!), but they are not the 'last word' or totally objective.

CAMERA? Well, they are sometimes right about media untruths about Israel (the media is rarely very trustworthy on anything; but there are untruths about other coutries and situations that they seem to accept. I tend to judge the reliability of a site or organization in part by the groups, blogs and sites to which it links. If a critic of Israel links to Electronic Intifada, I will not necessarily discount all that they say, but I will consider that they may have a bias. If they link to Rense, IfAmericansKnew, WhatReally(Never)Happened, or Infowars, then I will regard them as completely untrustworthy. They may happen to be right on some issue, but their views cannot be taken as evidence. In the case of Camera, they link to some 'genuine' sources, but also to Free Republic (though also to DU, which they call Democrat Underground!), Melanie Phillips, Daniel Pipes, and the truly evil, far-right, anti-democratic Mark Steyn. Anyone who thinks that Steyn's views could ever have *any* validity is instantly more than suspect in my eyes - just like someone who thinks that Gilad Atzmon's views could have any validity.

TheGoldstoneReport. This seems to have been set up with the express purpose of opposing the report, and includes lots of anonymous right-wing bloggers. Landes is a genuine academic historian, but has posted inaccurate stuff on his own 'blogs', especially with regard to Europe; and I would not trust him that much outside of his own subject.

'Blaming the messenger?' Perhaps; but unreliable messengers, or those with a harmful agenda, *do* potentially invalidate their message. Firstly, if they accept bad sources on some issues, just because they support their 'side', they may well do so on others. Secondly, if they give the implicit and sometimes explicit message, "Being pro-Israel (or pro-Palestinian) requires you to accept right-wing and xenophobic agendas" - they are going to turn plenty of people off. Every time a pro-Israel argument is combined with support for generally right-wing agendas, support for the 'war on terror', or a tribalist hostility to Muslims (in particular in my case any buying in to the 'Eurabia' myth or British anti-immigrant bigotry), it does make people like me a little less inclined to support the pro-Israel viewpoint. Every time a pro-Palestinian argument is combined with support for xenophobic-isolationist agendas, accusations of 'Zionists' having a baleful influence on other countries, other antisemitic conspiracy theories, or any right-wing agenda, it makes people like me a little bit *more* pro-Israel. As there are plenty of both such arguments, it probably all ends up leaving me pretty much where I started! What I think personally is utterly trivial in the wider scheme of things, but presumably the people on both sides do want not only to preach to the choir (or worse, stir up the mob), but to get the people on the fence more onto their side, and they are certainly doing a piss-poor and often counterproductive job of that! On both sides.

This doesn't mean that everything in the Goldstone Report is *right*. My view of the matter is that the report was produced without adequate information being made available on either side; and that no report at all might have been better than a report produced without sufficient access to information. I do not think that it is all evil lies, however. I think that it is misused by both 'pro's and 'anti's: some people are for it just because it can be used as fodder against Israel; some people are against it because they think that the principles in it are against the hawkish 'war on terror'; few people on either side seem to take on board the statements that Hamas have committed war crimes, as though Hamas are virtually irrelevant *except* as a source of 'justified' or 'morally atrocious' negativity toward Israeli actions (which is of course just where Hamas would like to have us!)

[shira]

23. so challenge their arguments - to date, none of Goldstone's followers have

"In all our analyses and conclusions, we have adhered to principles of empirical evidence and consistent reasoning. Since the skeptical reader might well accuse us of making up our mind in advance, we emphasize that one should not agree or disagree with us because of how one feels about Israel or the Palestinians, but because of the evidence. We invite readers to examine our arguments without prejudice, make up their own minds and, where they see problems, challenge our arguments. Sweeping and inflammatory rhetoric not welcome."

http://www.goldstonereport.org/

I value honesty and accuracy - two virtues that are non-existant in the Goldstone Report.

If you can find holes in any of the 3 analyses provided (CAMERA, MFA, Understanding...), I'm certain the people responsible for that information would appreciate being corrected. Being inaccurate or logically inconsistent does not serve their purposes.

BTW, here's another source for you, unless you know something about Trevor Norwood I don't know...
http://www.telfed.org.il/files/Letter%20to%20Richard%20Goldstone%2010-19-09.PDF

Please read the first 7 pages of Norwood's letter and let me know what you think.

Thanks.

[LeftishBrit]

37. On reflection, I will try to compose a post in response to your first link: to the Israeli Foreign

Ministry.

If we are dealing with I/P issues, we have to deal with the viewpoints of the leaders on both sides, whether we like it or not. Also, with the IFM, one will get the pro-Israel side in its 'pure' form, and without any need to sift through more general right-wing philosophical arguments.

I will compose the comments and post them later this weekend. I suspect that you will not agree with most of them - though I am not exactly a 'Goldstone backer' or Goldstone opponent if it comes to that; I'm just an opponent of the right wing in all its forms and all its nationalities, and might not even have responded to your previous post if I hadn't thought that some of your previous links are to sources which accept right-wing philosophies as a whole.

[shira]

40. looking forward to it!

[shira]

41. LB, to make it easier and move along, just bring up the best 1 or 2 short rebuttals you can think of

don't knock yourself out trying to compose some 4000 word masterpiece.

[indjouro]

35. Did you read the whole Goldstone report?

I have. I didn't rely on links and others to tell me where it was wrong. Additionally, I have reported from Gaza and the occupited territories of Palestine to see the brutality, harassment, and cruelty shown. Have you seen any of the photos for the destruction? Read any of the personal accounts? Spoken to anyone who lived in Gaza and had to endure this? Why is it that the majority of the rest of the world supports Goldstone except the US and a few of our allies?

[shira]

36. i made it halfway through and that was plenty....why are you reluctant to read the criticisms of it?

they're quite devastating - and demonstrate how unreliable, dishonest, and generally atrocious the report is. If you can find anything at all wrong in any of the 4 analyses cited, do let me know and I'll pass it on.

You mentioned intellectual dishonesty earlier - here's your opportunity to prove yourself and test my intentions and motivations at the same time - are you up to the challenge?

I'm betting you won't be able to dispute anything substantive - there's a reason Goldstone and his crew won't attempt to address the critics. That reason is his report simply cannot be defended. It's horrible.

Those who are intellectually dishonest and interested only in narratives and swayed by propaganda tend to be impervious to facts and solid reasoning....facts do not matter to them. Are you one of those people? We'll see, won't we?

Give either of those 4 articles a little time - I read halfway through Goldstone....why don't you at least try reading 10 pages of those articles?

=========

"In all our analyses and conclusions, we have adhered to principles of empirical evidence and consistent reasoning. Since the skeptical reader might well accuse us of making up our mind in advance, we emphasize that one should not agree or disagree with us because of how one feels about Israel or the Palestinians, but because of the evidence. We invite readers to examine our arguments without prejudice, make up their own minds and, where they see problems, challenge our arguments. Sweeping and inflammatory rhetoric not welcome."

http://www.goldstonereport.org /

[LeftishBrit]

42. Comments on Foreign Ministry statements

The major points here, as briefly as I can express, seem to be:

(1) Israel acted in self defence against terrorism; therefore OCL was justified


There is no doubt that Israel's actions were prompted by rockets/ acts of terrorism/ fear of terrorism. The question is: were the actions justified, and are they likely to be effective long-term? Neither of these is really the major subject of the report. However, the level of danger to and actual killing of civilians was not, IMO, justified. Many countries have experienced terrorist threats of a serious nature. In the UK for many years the people of both sides of the religious fence in Northern Ireland were subjected to bombs and killings; and the IRA spread this at times to other parts of the UK. Yet in recent times Britain did not respond with the same level of aggression (in earlier times there was indeed brutal suppression - and it just perpetuated the dangers long-term).

In Israel (as in many other countries), far more people have been killed by traffic accidents than by terrorism. If Israel cracked down vehemently on traffic offenses; e.g. had a mandatory ten-year sentence for anyone caught speeding; then they would probably save lots more Israeli Jewish lives than they could by operations such as OCL. They would not do this, because they would regard it doubtless as an unacceptable infringement on civil liberties. This indicates that self-defense and preventing deaths are sometimes constrained by other concerns. So one cannot say that *everything* should be accepted if considered as self-defence. Moreover, I do not think that operations like OCL are going to be protective in the long run; they will just lead to terrorists regrouping and receiving even more support.



(2) Israel acted against Hamas, not the people of Gaza

That may be correct in terms of intention, but bombing Gaza was obviously not going to kill only Hamas.

(3) This is 'a political assault ... against every State forced to confront terrorist threats'

See under (1)

(4) The Report dismisses the Israeli legal system and its extensive investigation process and thus calls into question the internal investigation procedures of the armed forces of most democratic states.

And so it should. Internal investigation procedures of the armed forces of *any* state are likely to be at best unconsciously biased.

(5) It makes judgements in the absence of crucial information

That criticism is the most justified one IMO. Partly due to the fact that Israel refused to provide crucial info - but needless to say, Hamas didn't provide it either. The report cannot be taken as gospel *because* lots of info was unavailable.

(6) It is one-sided, ignoring the actions of Hamas.

Not really; there are lots of criticisms of Hamas which was accused of war crimes against civilians.

(7) It is biased in its selection of witnesses.

Yes - but that is to a large degree because only some people were prepared to co-operate as witnesses; and many Israelis were not. This does affect the reliability of the report - see (5).

(8) It ignores or downplays Hamas' admission of use of 'human shields'

It may do so, but there seems to be an assumption on the other side that as Hamas has sometimes used human shields, that means that *all* or most Palestinian civilian casualties are human shields. I do not think that this is so, unless one is to use such a broad definition of 'human shields' that it would apply to the civilian casualties of most wars.

These are my points here; I don't think you will agree with any except (5), and I would also add that the real bias is perhaps in the fact that the UN does commission a report about Israel, but not about the UK or USA or China, etc.

[LeftishBrit]

43. Just found this article, which makes some of the points that I would, but more clearly.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121054.html

[azurnoir]

7. this seems a bit of a "two step" these rules would pertain

if Israel is indeed a theocracy, however all claims that I have read say that Israel is a secular state and that the relationship to the Old Testament is ethnic rather than religious

[shira]

9. who gives a rip what Israel calls itself - human rights violations are wrong whether under Islamic,

....secular, or Jewish democratic rule.

One standard for all.

Israel could declare itself under theological Torah rule tomorrow - and according to UN legislation - like all Arab/Muslim states represented by the OIC, criticism of Israel would also be off limits.

You're okay with that?

I guess it's the "progressive" thing nowadays to look the other way at human rights violations to over 350 million Arabs and Muslims in order to do the OIC's bidding by focusing mainly on imaginary water crises in Israel.

:eyes:

[oberliner]

13. Egypt is ostensibly not a theocracy either

Although they raised the objection in the first place.

[azurnoir]

24. No Egypt is not a theocracy

however Egypt did not raise the protest in the name of the Egyptian government but protested a slur of Islam a distinction, would Israel as the Jewish State make that same distinction when it came to complaints against its own government as long as those protests did not include any religious references?

The entire article seems based on that assumption which IMO is quite a strawman

[oberliner]

27. What was the slur? nt

[azurnoir]

28. what was Egypt protesting? n/t

[LeftishBrit]

17. Interesting

Personally I think it wrong and regressive for the UN to have an 'anti-blasphemy resolution' at all. The UN is a community of nations from a very wide variety of cultural and religious backgrounds, and, while gratuitous attacks on any religion are inappropriate to the UN, so are demands that any or all religions should be actively respected in that context. If you want to honour your God, go to church, mosque, synagogue or temple - not to a multinational political organization.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. I haven't read it, but the resolution isn't called an 'anti-blasphemy' anything...

It sounds from what another poster who's read the resolution said that it's about the gratuitous attacks on religions. From what I can work out there's some sort of attempt to piggy-back human rights abuses like FGM, human trafficking, and child brides onto that as being an attack on Islam, which is patently absurd seeing as how none of those practices are religious ones, but more cultural and tribal. Regardless, that sort of ridiculous stuff is no reason to be opposed to the resolution itself...

[bemildred]

18. SIgh. How tedious.

I read the resolution itself, which reads as the usual UN babble which compels nobody to do anything. It certainly does not merit the name "anti-blasphemy" resolution. The thrust of it seems to be that one ought not stereotype religions, and in particular Islam. I see little that I disagree with really, and little enough substance at all.

The OIC's objections do have the air of protesting a bit too much, based on the thin thread that criticism of FGM, child brides, and stoning as elements of "Sharia Law" constitutes stereotyping of Islam - a point I don't feel competent to adjudicate - other than to note that none of these "customs" are universal to Islam, they are rather cultural features which are present in some places and not in others, which suggests that they are features of local culture rather than of Islam the religion. I would like to ask the OIC in what form it would be acceptable to them to allow criticism of those practices, and I would like to see such criticism then vigorously pursued, as I suspect would many progressive muslims too.

The argument the OP makes does not appear to me to be intended to be taken seriously, being more in the nature of a rhetorical exercise intended to show hypocrisy in the OIC than a coherent argument intended to arrive at some conclusion.

[azurnoir]

19. Thank you n/t

[oberliner]

21. Agree completely (except with the tedious comment)

Especially with your last paragraph.

I would hope we can all see that the OIC resolution is ridiculous and express our displeasure with it accordingly.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Are you sure you read the post yr replying to properly?

Bemildred said he sees little in the resolution to disagree with, while you do. If the resolution is what Bemildred says it is, then I don't understand why you see the resolution as ridiculous. Stereotyping of religions is wrong, and there's no exceptions to that....

[shira]

22. well put - the conclusion is that it's a flawed resolution & the HRC is a sick joke

[IndianaGreen]

29. Marx: Religion is the opium of the people

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

--Karl Marx

[proteus_lives]

31. World: Communism is as dead as the Dodo.

Some find gods in church or political rallies.

I wouldn't want to live in a theocratic state or a communist dictatorship.

Let's keep working for secular democracies.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Vietnam might be a bit surprised to find that out...

Considering how it's a communist state and all....

Don't know about living there, but I'm sure wanting to go there on a holiday and it's far higher on my wishlist than visiting the US is :)

[proteus_lives]

33. Vietnam is like China, red in name only.

They are a free-market economy.

They only became a prosperous country after dropping the heart of that commie garbage.

They are still a one-party dictatorship but they are socialists now.


I'd visit too if I had the time or money. My dad said it was a beautiful country. (He visited in the '60s under far less pleasant circumstances.)

Hey don't sell the US short! We have a slice of everything. You want Vietnamese culture and food? I used to live in Eastern Texas and I know half a dozen cities/towns that have a "Little Vietnam" section. That's one of the great things about the States, we have enclaves of virtually every culture on earth.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. I don't know if you get to see Top Gear in the US, but they rode through Vietnam once...

..and I fell in love from what I saw of the place. One of my friends is from Vietnam and she spelt out the downsides of Vietnam that I wouldn't like, eg the heat and their insistance on ignoring pedestrian crossings, but I'd still like to go. As for the US, I'll get there one day and drive from one side to the other on the wrong side of the road (at least for me it's the wrong side) and see the sights with the exception of New York, which would be too big, busy and overwhelming for me to enjoy...

btw, we have those little cultural enclaves here too. I didn't realise till I had some Italian food in Italy that what we get served here is quite different than what the locals over there eat. Same goes for our Chinese takeaways, I've been told...

[cali]

38. Violet, if you get here, please don't skip NY

It's really not as overwhelming as you may believe. I bet you'd love it. Even I love it, and I'm a country person through and through.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Yr probably right...

AFter all, London's a massive and busy city and I didn't find it the slightest bit overwhelming when I was there, so NY would probably be the same. That is, unless the traffic there's like in Bangkok, where you take yr life into yr own hands trying to use a pedestrian crossing :)