Fadlallah fatwa bans normalizing Israel ties

BEIRUT: Leading Lebanese Shiite cleric Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah issued a fatwa, or religious decree, on Sunday forbidding the normalization of ties with neighboring Israel. “The normalization of ties with the Zionist enemy in any form is prohibited by sharia ,” Fadlallah said in statement. “We confirm that the fatwa against normalization applies to every Muslim.”

Washington has called on Arab governments to begin normalizing ties with Israel and for the country to halt settlement construction in the occupied West Bank to help pave the way for a resumption of Israel-Palestinian talks broken off in December.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=106449

I shall have to read his original for more of a comment, though I will say that Sayyid Fadlallah is perhaps second only to Khamenei in influence on such matters.

all those times...

In response to the Hezbollah attack against the US embassy.

Is there a fatwa out against normalizing relations with the US as well?

Israel is widely blamed, but I believe that this was a joint effort between Saudi intelligence and the CIA, who were fuming not particularly about the successful operations against the Marine Barracks or the US/Kuwaiti/French embassies, but another similar event that practically wiped out all Saudi-CIA assets in Beirut. The most heinous assassination attempt and the massacre that followed more closely followed this particular event. Sayyid Fadlallah walked away with barely a scratch, shame about all of those nursing mothers and little girls that were slaughtered in the 8-story apartment building that was levelled. Remember kids, "the terrorists hate us for our FREEDOMS!". Repeat that mantra until it becomes believable.

However there were other attempts against Sayyid Fadlallah, particularly also against his family and students.

I would have to look through the mountain of rulings that he has to his name, but I do know that there are specific rulings issued against cooperation with the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, against the widespread interference in Lebanese elections (past and current), a general boycott, and numerous statements of the sort. The very specific subject of "normalizing relations" is not analogous to past rulings, as this is a specific situation relevant to this particular time period and framed in such specific wordings.

wanted to hold hands and sing Kumbaya with Israel?

:shrug:

So far as I know, normalisation with the Arab states has (quite rightly, in my view) never been presented as anything other than conditional on Israel demonstrating a genuine interest in making peace, and we're a long, long way from that.

Right now, I think calling on them to refrain from doing so until Israel is interested is absolutely right.

That;s not just "calling them to refrain" now, is it?

'67 -- rather mind boggling?

Always fascinating that otherwise reasonable people can draw such radically different positions on this issue.

They also have normal relations with the United States.

Those two countries are responsible for the deaths of countless more Muslims and Arabs than Israel since 1967.

I daresay it's not even close.

And I would note that the US occupation of Iraq continues unabated to say nothing of Russia's hold over Chechnya.

Why is Lebanon comfortable having normal relations with those two countries in spite of their behavior over the past 40 years (and currently)?

One is that Israel's crimes against the Palestinians are ongoing, whereas the vast majority of casus beli Lebanon might have against the US and Russia are in the past.

The other is that neither of those two countries bombed Lebanon itself a few years back.

The US and Russia are currently engaged in actions against Muslims and Arabs that are very much ongoing.

Please remember that the conflict between Russia and the predominately Muslim republic of Chechnya has resulted in more than 100,000 deaths and that sporadic "operations" by Russian forces against "insurgents" in that region are still taking place. 11 people were killed this weekend, in fact, amidst fighting (and suicide bombings) taking place in Chechnya and Dagestan.

And, of course, I need not mention that the number of Muslim and Arab causalities continues to grow at the hands of US (or US trained) forces both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

and Russia has been reasonably helpful from the point of view of the Shia in Lebanon.

He said Palestinians.

To wit: "One is that Israel's crimes against the Palestinians are ongoing"

Why are the crimes against Palestinians more important to the Lebanese than the crimes against Chechnyans or Iraqis?

There are large numbers of Iraqi refugees living in Lebanon so one would think that their plight would especially resonate with the Lebanese people.

It is clear that Israel's crimes against the Palestinians *do* matter more to the Lebanese than Russia's crimes against the Chechens, just as e.g. the Palestinians crimes against Israel matter more to Americans than Israel's crimes against the Palestinians, and no-one anywhere gave a damn about the Rwandan genocide.

As far as I can see, geographical or cultural proximity makes a big difference. "Terrible things being done to people like me" and "people like me doing terrible things" agitate people more than "people not like me doing terrible things to other people not like me" (what "like/not like" means in this context I make no pretence at being able to explicitly define - race, language, rich/poor and geographical distance all appear to contribute).

But while I can't tell you with 100% confidence why the Lebanese care more strongly about the Palestinians than about the Chechyens or the Iraqis, it seems clear that they do do so.


It's also worth noting that America is in the process of withdrawing from Iraq, whereas Israel is in the process of expanding its occupation of Palestine.

Lebanon made no effort to cut ties with the US even when they first invaded Iraq and all during the ensuing occupation. I would note that the number of Iraqi civilians killed in the six years since the US invaded is much higher than the civilian death toll of any of the recent conflicts that Israel has been involved with over the past forty years.

The other points you make are interesting ones. I do share your frustration with the ambivalence the world seemed to feel about the Rwandan genocide, and the way most of the "Western World" currently feels about conflicts and atrocities going on in Africa generally.

I would only find it frustrating if I expected better.

Issues like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the Chinese treatment of Tibet, the American invasion of Iraq and Mugabe's human rights abuses in Zimbambwe are, and I suspect always will be, the exception rather than the rule. That's no reason not to try for the best possible solution to them, but it will only ever be a band-aid.

And, come to that, tackling conflicts is a far less efficient way of improving the world than e.g. working at a profitable job and spending the money you make on sending rehydration salts to African children dying from diahorrea.



I guess that the reason Lebanon didn't cut ties with the US is that it would be much more economically damaging for it to do so, incidentally. I'd have to check that, but I'd be frankly surprised if there were much more to it than that. It's exactly the same as the way that I am keep for the US to put pressure on Israel to end its human rights abuses, but am not campaigning for a similar boycott against China over Tibet.


Aren't human beings (including me) wonderful?

Do you know of the shitty conditions Palestinian refugees live under in Lebanon?

Yeah, they care.

:eyes:

They care about the Palestinian cause, not Palestinians.

You know what that means, right?

Why are the crimes against Palestinians more important to the Lebanese than the crimes against Chechnyans or Iraqis?

Like any other people, I think it's very safe to guess that the Lebanese would tend to give more of a shit about what's happening next door to them than to whats happening a long way away. I can't see anything wrong with that....

And Lebanon has been directly impacted by the fighting there as they have tried to deal with a large number of refugees from Iraq.

In fact, Human Rights Watch published 66-page report entitled, "Rot Here or Die There: Bleak Choices for Iraqi Refugees in Lebanon."

Clearly the US-led invasion of Iraq hit very close to home for Lebanon.

You do realize the difference between being for the Palestinian cause rather than for Palestinians, right?

strange on a blog like this which tends to question authority and its REAL reasons. The "cause," has always been about keeping the peasants too occupied to see the real enemy. We knew this kind of stuff decades ago....where did that knowledge go and what vile thing has taken its place?

You do realise the difference between a people and their government, right? When it comes to what the people of Lebanon believe or how they feel, yr not someone I'd be expecting to know much about it at all...

those refugees live under atrocious conditions.

what are the caring people of Lebanon doing for them? where are the rallies, petitions for Palestinian civil rights, etc?

You appear to have an abysmal view of the Lebanese people that borders on demonisation....

btw, you might want to go and read this subthread because yr contradicting the argument that the Lebanese tend to care more about what happens to the Palestinians than they do about the Chechens or Iraqis....

And unlike other regimes, they at least have a little more say and freedom of speech - yet there are no great movements within Lebanese society to see to it that conditions for Palestinian refugees there improves.

And the argument really isn't that Lebanese care more about Palestinians than Iraqis or Chechens becaue that isn't the issue - but rather that they care about only the cause, not the people.

Unless of course you are looking for evidence to bolster a belief that Arabs are irrational anti-semites.

The most irrational anti-semites, I have found, do not tend to come from the Middle East.

Isn't "Under the Bombs" a fictional movie or am I thinking of something else?

In any case, what are your thoughts on why Lebanon does not have a problem with having normal relations with the US and Russia?

In America's case we have no intetion on staying longer then we have to, we'll turn the land back over to muslima as soon as we can.
In Russia's case Chechnya isn't considered traditional Islamic land, or atleast not land at the very center of the Islamic world like Israel.

Israel is on land that had been considered muslim for centuries, it has a long bloody history of being defended and kept by muslims since the crusades and it is near intolerable to the arab world that it is suddenly in Non-muslim hands.

Thats just my guess, the tradtions, the ties and the history of the land of Israel/Palestine run much deeper then the connections to Chechnya.

I'm not muslim, I can only guess.

the master (Machiavelli) said it best:-



The life of an Iraqi peasant hasnt changed fundamentally since the American occupation, although it may have made selling his produce a bit dicey at times.

On the other hand, if you were to resume that peasant's land for a wall or a pipe or a road, suddenly his life does change quite fundamentally, and he becomes quite angry.

The point worth stressing to an outsider is that it is not climactic events which create this anger, but the mundane aspects of the Israeli occupation. Checkpoints, curfews and closures. Stopping peasants from harvesting their crops, ripping out olive trees to install a pipe.

The absence of such measures is largely why the Brits and Turks occupied Palestine mostly without great incident. Of course, if you can carry out land reform (giving the peasants more land) that's even better. China's occupation of Tibet and the United States' occupation of Japan were safe and successful for that very reason.

The palestinians are operating on a Arab mentally dating back to the crusades that says keep traditonally islamic land, never give a inch and on a recent history where they suddenly found themselves on their asses and out of their homes, and the Israelis are operating on a desperate some would say fanatic (Even more so then the palestinian) fear and paranoia of a second holocaust which served to turn zionism into the political power house it is in the jewish world.

When you take a people with a historical dictate that says never surrender your land and a people who know a historical event that teaches you not to trust anyone and that you're only a few bads years away from annihilation, give them the same piece of land to fight over, you get well... what you have now.

The every day stuff fuels that deep seeded cultural feelings of not wanting to comrpomise, but I think the underlying problems are bigger then that.

the Palestinians presume that if they constantly needle the Israelis, they will leave, the same way that the Brits and the Turks and the Crusaders left.

The Israeli Jews presume that this is another chapter in their 2000-year old lachrymose history. They view anti-Semitism as a cosmological constant, rather than a political phenomenon. It is sui generis, it is categorically unique. Indeed, any attempt to explain anti-Jewish sentiment as a political phenomenon is viewed as an attempt to deny it, or even worse, justify it. Of course, it is unspeakable to suggest that in fact the lachrymose view of Jewish history is misplaced, and that where possible Jews have been as ready to inflict bloodshed (such as during the Cyrene massacres) as anyone else.

It is this ephemeral quality that means anti-Semitism can be invoked in almost any situation. I have seen Israeli backpackers accuse a Burmese restaurant owner of anti-Semitism, even though Burmese know about as much of Jews as you or I know about Burma's Karen minority. Israelis tend to go backpacking just after their military service, which tends to create a "football trip" mentality which many locals resent.

This kind of narrative and insularity was extremely useful in preserving Jewish identity in the face of the most all-conquering culture (the Western culture) that the world has ever known. However, it has probably not been so helpful in creating a republic and it is even less helpful in ruling over other peoples. Israel is a young country but so are the former British colonies and they are some of the most stable societies in the world, mainly by virtue of the successful British attempt to persuade other people to adopt its culture - witness for example, New Zealand Maoris' enthusiasm for rugby or the fact that the only place where the Anglican church is growing is in Africa.

It is a hate that has spanned generations and cultures, and most certainly doesn't seem to be on the down swing of late....

What do you suggest the correct view of anit-semitism?

The Palestinians dislike the Israelis because they came and took their land. The Nazis disliked the Jews because they were a mercantile minority that the Nazis saw as exploitative and parasitic.

Two entirely different phenomena. The second situation resembles numerous other places and times where mercantile minorities have been expelled or killed by populist leaders - for example, the Indians in Uganda under Idi Amin, or the riots against Chinese in Malaysia, or the Indians in Fiji, or the Christians in the Ottoman empire.

Its worth noting that the one place where anti-Semitism did not occur was in India, as India already had plenty of mercantile minorities (Jains, Parsees and high-caste Hindus) who by and large continued to dominate trade in India. Essentially, Jews never rose to a sufficiently high social status that they could be resented.

If the Israel situation resolves itself it may well herald the end of anti-Semitism. About the only place where Jews still constitute a mercantile minority is the United States, although this is gradually disappearing on account of intermarriage and also the rising Chinese and Indian professional classes.

Other than as a legacy position of the fringe, neo-fascist grouplets I would expect anti-Semitism as a social force would then disappear.

There's a fairly clear split between the countries that were once part of the European empires.

On the one hand, you have America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. In these places the Europeans displaced the locals - either through genocide or ethnic cleansing, usually - and settled themselves. These are all prosperous, stable, liberal societies, but I don't think that justifies the crimes that were committed in founding them.

On the other hand, you have places like the parts of Africa South America and Asia where the Europeans conquered the local people, ruled and exploited them for a few hundred years leaving their cultures at least somewhat intact but decapitated, and then left or granted them autonomy. Almost without exception, these countries make up the developing world.


in 150 years time, the inhabitants of the land that is currently Israeli settlements will almost certainly be far better off if they're descended from Israeli settlers than Palestinian natives.


I don't, however, think that "it will lead to a better society in the long run" is even slightly a justification for either the European or the Israeli empires.

"Men should be either treated generously or destroyed, for they may take vengeance for slight injuries, for crippling injuries, they cannot." -Machiavelli

The problem is that the Palestinians have neither been treated generously, nor destroyed. A final resolution of the problem will have to involve Israel electing one of those two options or the other.

"If you hold an ox by one horn and hit him on the bottom, he runs round and round in circles".

Palestinians have NOT always sought to "constantly needle."

Initially Palestinians sought political freedom (waited for this) thru international channels (UN up until 1967), then through its own liberation groups (PLO in 60s and 70s), then through negotiation, then thru the 2-state scam.

Some Palestinians adopted armed resistance in the belief that when Israels will quit the occupation when the price becomes too high. They learned this lesson from Hezbollah after the Israelis withdrew from their Lebanese occupation.

The British and Turkish occupations did not include important foreign settlers to permanently take over the land. Israel's presence on the land is fundamentally different than previous occupiers. It runs much deeper than the mundane aspects of occupation, though those are clearly a motivating factor.

Second, Palestinian nationalism grew at the same point in history that national movements were emerging all over the developing world. It happened in a larger international context.

With that mind, do you see any scenario that would allow for Israel to be recognized by Lebanon?

If there is a two-state solution but Israel is still in "non-Muslim" hands" won't the same situation persist?

I doubt the man on the street loses sleep every night over the existance of Israel. Israel has been around a very long time, alot of people are just getting used to the idea I'd suppose. However there are plenty of groups like Hezbollah or various Al qaeda inspired organizations who pretty much lay out they won't be happy as long as Israel is there and they want it gone from jerusalem to Tel aviv. (I'm not including hamas in this, because they said they might accept a peace deal on the green line, but that could just be international posturing)

There is no possibility of peace with groups that find the very existence of Israel abhorrent, you can either try and change the minds of these groups, you can try to reduce their influence, or you can try to wipe them out militarily to the point where they aren't a threat.

for why so many Lebanese feel like they do.

It gives a sense of the utter devastation of 2006. I highly recommend your viewing it.

But I suspect that you're not terribly interested in understanding people's POV... if you were, you wouldn't be asking me why Lebanon has no problem in having normal relations with Russia.

Israel demonstrating a genuine interest in making peace

the conclusion ...i just can't wait for my kids to join the IDF and get involved in the next war...because if we aren't interested in a "genuine" peace...i guess that means we prefer a genuine war.......

or did I read your rather gross generalization wrong?

I'm quite sure you don't want your own children, or the children of other Jews, killed.

I think that you don't care nearly enough about the children of Palestinians being killed.

I think that you support policies which make both the death of your own children and the deaths of Palestinian children more likely.

I don't know whether you do that because you disagree with that assessment, or because you value Israel's settlements more than peace; I suspect that there is an element of each but I'm not a mind-reader.


I sincerely hope that your children have the courage and ethics to refuse to serve in the IDF, and that you have the courage and ethics to encourage them to do so.

I sincerely hope that your children have the courage and ethics to refuse to serve in the IDF, and that you have the courage and ethics to encourage them to do so.

........my kids already volunteer to help the "lesser" before they start their service....and usually those in the socialistic youth groups (my son) who learn to live by their values volunteer to serve in the paratroops. I assume my children will follow their value system and be willing to sacrifice for those values that they believe in.....as does their dad. Those values and ethics obviously do not agree with your definitions of such, but they are within the liberal/progressive side of the line as per israeli western democracy-that puts them squarely ln the IDF, and they are the Palestinians best hope for peace.

Your children clearly have principles, but that's not the same as being a good person. If they're choosing to serve in the IDF then at least some of those principles are bad ones. Risking your life in defence of your homeland may be creditable, but risking it to prolong a crime against humanity is contemptible.

Israel is full of people who assume that they are good, decent people, support horrific crimes, and assume that because they are good decent people who support them those crimes can't be horrific - it's all circular.

To call the IDF the Palestinians' best hope for peace is laughable, unless you're referring to the thousands of Palestinians, mostly innocent civilians, including many children, who the IDF has sent to rest in peace, in many cases deliberately or negligently so as to terrorise the Palestinian civilian population.

I am awrae that what I am saying is extraordinarily rude and offensive, but I can't see a less offensive way to put it: the IDF does terribly wicked things, and you appear to be encouraging your children in enabling it, and I think trying to make that point clear is worth causing offence. My apologies.

i'm very aware of the different perspectives and cultures involved here......

i sincerely believe not only have i taught my kids to be ethical, follow their beliefs as well as being a good people. By serving in the IDF, they are willing to risk their own lives to protect their families and enter into a very gray dangerous area that attempts to balance ethics while protecting their friends and family.

the contempt you wrote about is the same i have for those who believe that all israel has to do is disarm the IDF and we'll all hold hands and sing kumbaya.....most of us who live in the real world of kassams, mortars, sudden infiltration attacks have a better understanding of what we need than those who see the world through pink colored glasses

as far as the Palestinians best hope......yes it is via the IDF.....the vast bulk of the IDF decision makers, both in the field and offices are in favor of two states, as i am and my children are. They just have to convince us that we won't have repeat gaza or lebanon in the westbank.....

I think there is one thing that you really don't get.....i shall try to explain it: my generation, my kids etc, we all grow up with the shadow of the holocaust behind us, as well as the arabs attempts in 48 and 67 and 73. Thats the morality and crimes that your attempting to balance against israeli raids in the west bank, and the mini wars in gaza and Lebanon. If you were to "weigh" the potential of israel losing in the past/future wars vs what it has done to the Palestinians.....there is virtually no comparison. You may not do that...but we do, and its our lives and way of life in the balance.

We see the way the minorities are treated in arab countries, there is no doubt that we would get the same treatment via a victorious Palestinian army, and our cities would get the same treatment that the syria gave hama.....

what does that all mean?..it means we try our best, not to betray our own morals and humanity and at the sametime not to be fools and pretend that if we lay down our arms or believe that all its just the settlements (i.e. its our fault we've been at war since 1920) that all will be well. We do not have to take that chance at least not now. Not to long ago in the 20's 48, 67, we could have actually lost......its taken a lot of resources, to build up an army that puts us at an advantage, we don't have to squander on risky ventures....at least not all the time: worked with egypt, jordan...not so well with gaza.

You may say that the I/P conflict has nothing to do with the Holocaust or the wars of past....and i would counter with that the Palestinians have no religious/historical claim over jerusalem......Each culture and people have their own definitions of what defines them and its not up to some other culture to explain to them why they're identity is wrong, you just have to accept it and work with what it is.

and we work with some very very dark shadows hanging over our past.......

Israel retreating behind the '67 lines does nothing to address the problem of '48 or '37 (Peel) or '29 (Hebron). Limiting Israel to Tel Aviv alone would not be enough.

(except the "occupation" of all of Israel)

People want to ignore the simple truths.

are you that self centered or just that monocular?