“Two Palestinians armed with a gun, knives and axes stormed a synagogue complex in an ultra-Orthodox Jewish neighborhood of West Jerusalem on Tuesday morning and killed four men in the middle of their morning prayers, the Israeli police said.
The assailants were killed at the scene in a gun battle with the police that wounded two officers, one of whom died of his injuries on Tuesday night. It was the deadliest attack on Israeli civilians in more than three years, and the worst in Jerusalem since 2008.
Witnesses and Israeli leaders were particularly horrified at the religious overtones of an attack on a synagogue that killed men in ritual garments and spilled blood on prayer books.
“To see Jews wearing tefillin and wrapped in the tallit lying in pools of blood, I wondered if I was imagining scenes from the Holocaust,” said Yehuda Meshi Zahav, the veteran leader of a religious emergency-response team, describing the straps and prayer shawls worn by the worshipers.”* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down.
*Read more here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/world/middleeast/killings-in-jerusalem-synagogue-complex.html
Comments
Cenk:
You forgot to say that all this happens under the US protection of the Israel state. What a shame for the US. If only Americans knew whats going on.
HA
Ugh. Hacosta. Ugh.
1) Two State solution will not work. How are you suppose to transport goods and people between Gaza and the West Bank? Won’t work. Israel isn’t going to allow a high way and if they did, they are going to tax the f-word out of it. So it won’t work. You would need a three state solution. Gaza, Israel, and the West Bank.
2) The UN is about states, not people. Why don’t we support Western Sahara? We don’t, because Western Sahara isn’t a state and most Muslims don’t care, because it is a conflict between Muslims. Just the same as they didn’t care about Darfur. They fact they don’t care about Uyghurs (with the exception being Turks) is quite shocking. They just act white. You know how white people act. Muslims act like white people when the issue of Uyghurs is brought up. “Oh we don’t care. Oh they are not really Muslims, even though they are Sunnis. Oh China is our ally. We’ll allow them to kill our kind in their country so long as they can be as anti-Western as possible.”
3) There is no legitimate argument for Palestine. There is a legitimate argument for the people in Palestine, but not Palestine it self. There is a legitimate argument they should be treated better, given they accept Israeli Citizenship, so the state of Israel is compelled to treat them better.
Israel came into being due to the Mandate for Palestine which was set up by Britain. Britain got the deed from the Ottomans from the Treaty of Sevres. That makes not only the existence of Israel legitimate, but even the existence of an Arab Palestine illegal.
Why? The treaty or agreements made both between Arabs and the British Government, the British Government and the Jews and the Jews and the Arabs, would allow one Arab state to exist and an independent Palestine. This Palestine is refer to as the other. Non-Arab state. So it is Israel. What about the Arab state? That is Jordan. Jordan was set up for the Hashemites, because the agreement between the British and the Jews with the Arabs was with the Hashemites. And this agreement was fulfilled twice. British gave Iraq and created Jordan (Transjordan) which was from territory that was congruent with the Mandate for Palestine, before the Mandate of Palestine had existed in effect. The Mandate for Palestine was a document made in 1920 and ratified in 1923. The Mandate of Palestine was established in 1920, but Transjordan was not yet established until 1921. The document that allowed Transjordan to exist as a separate entity from Palestine was the the Transjordan memorandum, which is a part, an amendment to the Mandate for Palestine. It allowed the land to be given to the Hashemites, which is the basis of the agreement made between the Hashemites and the British Government. So that was fulfilled. And they even gave them Iraq. What they didn’t gave them was Syria and Lebanon, but that was given to France.
4) Now you would think that would remove the legitimacy Britain, but it didn’t. Foremost, the British Government has zero responsibility to fulfill any of its agreements that aren’t even made by the Parliament it self. These agreements made solely between people in the Parliament, but not Parliament in its entirety. Which kind of makes it unconstitutional as all laws have to be made within Parliament if you anything about their constitution. Now they had worked in Parliament to set up the Mandate for Palestine, but they didn’t work in Parliament to adhere or honor to the agreement supposedly made between Arabs and the British. That again was between a member of Parliament and the Hashemites, not the British Parliament through constitutional channels. So it was more of a wink promise rather than a true one. And they did deliver on what was their territory after signing off what they had agreed to France. And they did so twice, because they only agree to give them Jordan. They didn’t have to grant them Iraq, but felt sorry for Faisal and gave him Iraq.
5) Now here is the thing. Under Islamic Jurisprudence, none of these Arab states should exist. In fact, no state that is Muslim should exist, including Turkey.
Here is how. The Arab Revolt is unjust. It came from Arab Nationalism and the view of the Ottoman Caliph as illegitimate due to how he treated Arab nationalists, even though Shariah Law allows the Caliph to punish dissenters and Arab nationalism is dissension. If you are seeking independence, you are dissenting. It is plain and simple. More to the point, nationalism is a Kafar construct. It comes from Europe and was injected intentionally by Britain to weaken the Ottomans and acquire their territory.
That is the whole reason why ISIS exists due to the unjust reality of the outcome of WWI. The dissension of Arab Nationalism that is against the tenants of Islam.
How?
Shariah is a social contract between Muslim people and their state. It is just much more authoritarian than most social contracts tend to be. Therefore rights like nationalistic rights should not exist. It is against Shariah. You already made the social contract and thus those rights no longer exist. Furthermore, in Islam you are not suppose to value anything before Allah, which includes nationalism.
So the Arab Revolt is an act of Apostasy, which in turn removes the legitimacy of all states created from it. This would exclude Israel and would have excluded Turkey. As you see Israeli Jews are not Muslims. They don’t have to agree to Shariah other than paying that tax. Besides that they can do whatever they want. As for Turkey and all other Muslim countries, by mere recognizing these Apostate states, they are also engaging in Apostasy. Now Iran, Oman, and Azerbaijan, which are primarily Shi’ite as well as Lebanon (because it is primarily Christian and Shi’ite) are pretty much exempted, because Shi’ites will not recognize a Sunni Caliph anyways and Christians are not obligated to do so, because they are not Muslims.
However, Indonesia, Malaysia, Yemen, and so forth would be illegitimate. And it not that the leaders would be illegitimate, the countries too would be illegitimate as it has become central policy of the states. Thus new countries or governments in their entirety (constitution and name, not just assembly of elected and appointed officials) would have to be redone and not recognize the Republics of Iraq and Syria as well as the Kingdom of Jordan.
In fact, I would have to argue that Syria and Iraq would only be legitimate under Islam if they were ruled by Shi’ites. Because again Shi’ites never recognized the Ottoman Caliphs as their leader. They don’t recognize Sunnis as their leaders. So… We actually should support the Assad regime if we want to fight Isis and not the Sunni rebels who are not affiliated with Isis, because if the Sunni rebels win, any democratic move they make will automatically be tossed out the window. And as for Iraq, we should make it that the President of Iraq must be a Shi’ite. The Prime Minister could be Kurdish, but not the President.
Now Kurds never participated in the Arab revolt, so they are fine or should be. But if there is a Sunni Kurdish president, it might serve as a problem, since the President is the representative of the people of that state.
Even though this would empower Iran and Hezbollah. It would serve a better interest than the alternative.
Jordan would be a lost cause. Their only hope is to surrender the country to Israel. And Israel would have to construct a unique Jewish Caste in order to maintain control.
Democracy would be a lost cause, but what do you expect? It is Western. It is like trying to spread Christianity. It is just stupid. Work with what can work, not with what won’t work.