JPOST INTERVIEW WITH ...

[Pujah]

The American position has been blanketly opposed to settlement construction. Do you think Israel has a right to try and maintain a presence in the West Bank - for security, religious, historic or other reasons?

 

I think that Israel should abide by previous agreements and commitments that have been made, and aggressive settlement construction would seem to violate the spirit at least, if not the letter, of agreements that have been made previously.

 

Israel's security concerns, I think, have to be taken into account, via negotiation. I think the parties in previous discussions have stated that settlement construction doesn't necessarily contribute to that enhanced security. I think there are those who would argue that the more settlements there are, the more Israel has to invest in protecting those settlements and the more tensions arise that may undermine Israel's long-term security.

 

Ultimately, though, these are part of the discussions that have to take place between the parties. But I think that, based on what's previously been said, for Israel to make sure that it is aligned with those previous statements is going to be helpful to the process.

 

The current Israeli prime minister told me in an interview a few months ago that the great advantage of the Bush administration on that issue was that they looked at Israel on the basis of "67-plus" - that their starting point was that maybe Israel can expect or deserve support for a slightly larger sovereign presence than the pre-1967 Israel. Do you think of Israel in its final-status incarnation on the basis of "67-plus"?

 

Look, I think that both sides on this equation are going to have to make some calculations. Israel may seek "67-plus" and justify it in terms of the buffer that they need for security purposes. They've got to consider whether getting that buffer is worth the antagonism of the other party.

 

The Palestinians are going to have to make a calculation: Are we going to fight for every inch of that '67 border or, given the fact that 40 years have now passed, and new realities have taken place on the ground, do we take a deal that may not perfectly align with the '67 boundaries?

 

My sense is that both sides recognize that there's going to have to be some give. The question from my perspective is can the parties move beyond a rigid, formulaic or ideological approach and take a practical approach that looks at the larger picture and says, "What's going to be the best way for us to achieve security and peace?"

 

How should the free world tackle the threat of Islamic extremism, the "death cult" ideology that holds that the finest thing you can do for your god is kill and be killed?

 

There are a number of different aspects. Our first approach has to be to capture or kill those who are so steeped in that ideology that we're not going to convert them. Bin-Laden is not going to change his mind suddenly. So we have to be very aggressive in simply rolling up those terrorist networks that have been set up and that adhere to those views.

 

I would argue that the number of Muslims who both embrace and act on that ideology is relatively low. There's then a larger circle, there's a broader part of the Muslim world that is fundamentalist, but is not wedded to violence. The key in dealing with that aspect of Islam is to help them reconcile modernity to their faith. A lot of times their gripe is not with the West per se, but with the forces of modern life and globalization that is disruptive to their views of what their faith means.

 

And I think that lifting up models of countries that have found accommodation between Islam and a modern economy, globalization, diversity of cultures...

 

Countries such as?

 

A country like Jordan has gone a long way in moving in that direction. A country like Indonesia, which I lived in as a child for four years, has a strong tradition of tolerance of diversity. And although there was a certain period of time when a fundamentalist strain of terrorism infected the culture, that's not its core.

 

A final aspect of this is recognizing that the population explosion of uneducated young men and women who are impoverished is always dangerous in any society. And that helps fuel and feed Islamic radicalism, even if there is not a direct correlation.

 

I recognize that many of the perpetrators of terrorist acts aren't poor; often times [they] come from middle class or even upper class families. [but] there's no doubt that the tolerance or the acceptance of extremism among the broader population is often fuelled by frustration and a sense of no prospects for the future.

 

To the extent that we can work with countries like Egypt, or countries like Jordan, to assure that the youth that are coming up have avenues that allow them to prosper... We're not going to end this, to eliminate terrorism entirely. There's always going to have to be a part of our strategy that involves force. But I think that we can shrink the appeal of that ideology in a way that makes an enormous difference.

Full interview

 

[Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar]

The Palestinians are going to have to make a calculation: Are we going to fight for every inch of that '67 border or, given the fact that 40 years have now passed, and new realities have taken place on the ground, do we take a deal that may not perfectly align with the '67 boundaries?

Ninkaan siduu Qadaafi of Liibiya ku sheegaaye ka daran ayuuba noqonayaa. Too much pleaser. Bush ayuu ka dari doonaa kan intuu isleeyahay the slightest perceived political mistake ha sameynin. Forty years have now passed my @#$%, faarabuuto. No person or group ka qaadan karo another person's or group's land, walaa 40 or 400 years to pass.

 

I couldn't even read the rest of his hunqaac interview. Dadka Soomaaliyeed ninkaan u daba camiraayo la yaabaa.

 

 

Just remembered seeing this image taken this week in Alqudus. Where was the uproar and brouhaha from the usual and suspected quuqliyaasha?

[Som@li]

^Exactly, Oday Gadaafi may be crazy but sometimes he hits the nail on the head, Obama is classic A$$ kisser. How can one approve for something even many Jewish pple don't approve!

[Geel_jire]

amazing isn't it .. during the primaries I was for Obama 100% .. but now i cant stand B.O. the man is becoming a more frighting prospect then the feeble old man.

 

His absolute prejudice towards Muslims is astonishing to say the least.The man holds more extreme positions then G.B himself, and people please stop making excuses for him ! He has gone above and beyond the obligatory "I support Israel no matter what" ... "Muslims are terrorists" .. which is required for any candidate of that office.

 

These proclamations would be considered 'pandering' if he were involved in some back-n-forth with the McCain campaign regarding his support of Israel ... which is not the case ... if these are his 'Well thought out foreign policy' positions imagine what his pandering is going to be like.

[Som@li]

[Pujah]

^^ You guys should probably read McCain's answers to similarly phrased questions back in March by the same paper. In any case I thought he hit the right notes without antagonizing the Palestinians and the larger muslim world - I was specially happy with this part of his answer.

 

I would argue that the number of Muslims who both embrace and act on that ideology[terrorism] is relatively low. There's then a larger circle, there's a broader part of the Muslim world that is fundamentalist, but is not wedded to violence. The key in dealing with that aspect of Islam is to help them reconcile modernity to their faith. A lot of times their gripe is not with the West per se, but with the forces of modern life and globalization that is disruptive to their views of what their faith means.

 

And I think that lifting up models of countries that have found accommodation between Islam and a modern economy, globalization, diversity of cultures...

[Geel_jire]

^ consider the following points Pujah

 

- He is going against the official policy not only of every other country in the world aside from Israel, but even the US itself. Not one country has acknowledged Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem. Not one country has its embassy in Jerusalem - all embassies are in Tel Aviv.

 

- He is taking a position more extreme than George W. Bush, who has made no such declaration that Jerusalem must remain undivided. (He has said that Israel will keep major settlement blocs in a peace agreement, which is bad enough, but that doesn't imply keeping the Arab parts of Jerusalem.)

 

- He is taking a position more extreme than many - quite possibly most - Israelis, including some in the current government, who have talked about the possibility of sharing Jerusalem.

 

 

- He is siding with the most right-wing elements of both Israeli and Jewish-American opinion, and with the rabid Christian Zionist movement.

 

have a look at these links:

 

 

 

here

 

here

[Blessed]

Obama is the most overrated politician, ever. Somalis need to see past his blackness and his connection to Islam (which he seems to be extremely ashamed of). He’s an articulate fool.

[Haneefah]

Originally posted by Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar:

Dadka Soomaaliyeed ninkaan u daba camiraayo la yaabaa.

My sentiments exactly. As if he is any better a politician. In fact, this perceived loyalty of his to those minority fans will slowly vanish as he tries hard to prove his impartiality. Ninku wuu af-macaanyahay, that's as far as his strength goes, me thinks.