"Two States, One Homeland - an open land for all"

[LuisDantas]

Have you heard of this group?

Institute for Interreligious Dialogue - Wikipedia.

They are from Iran. Organizations like this give me hope. But, because I am naturally gullible and overly trusting, I'm not sure if I can trust my optimistic impression of this organization.

@sooda , have u heard about this group? Can I trust that they are not mis-representing their intentions on the website? ( Feel free to speculate. I am asking for your opinion )

@LuisDantas , I consider you a trusted skeptic, if you have time, I would very much appreciate your answer to the same question posed above. Your opinion will help offset my natural bias towards optimism.

Here's snippet from the organization's website.

"
Having a genuine, effective and appropriate dialogue between different religions requires good faith and daring
"

Note the word; "daring". I like that.

hyperlink >>> iid.org.ir/?p=358

Thanks.

There is only so much that I can figure from a website and a couple of brief Wikipedia articles, but what I see is certainly encouraging.

I expect and hope this initiative to give very constructive fruit, and look forward to its efforts.

 

[sooda]

Thanks.

There is only so much that I can figure from a website and a couple of brief Wikipedia articles, but what I see is certainly encouraging.

I expect and hope this initiative to give very constructive fruit, and look forward to its efforts.

I have a couple of Iranian friends who go home every year for a month or so. Sharp cookies IMO.. nice ladies. The rhetoric from the Iranian "leadership" may as well be from Mars.. It just doesn't connect. Privately I have thought that both the hardcore Iranian nuts and the Likkud keep stirring the pot to stay in power.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have a couple of Iranian friends who go home every year for a month or so. Sharp cookies IMO.. nice ladies. The rhetoric from the Iranian "leadership" may as well be from Mars.. It just doesn't connect. Privately I have thought that both the hardcore Iranian nuts and the Likkud keep stirring the pot to stay in power.

I am hardly well-acquaintanced with Iranian culture, but I was around in the late 1970s and I have read some since.

Iran, for good or worse, went through a llot of drammatic, very sudden institutional change in the last few decades. Some form of "whiplash" is all but assured. People need time to fully adjust to so much change even when they uniformly want it - and apparently they did not.

Word has it that the current Islamist regime of Iran has lost a lot of popular support. The conditions necessary for a deradicalization may well be underway.

 

[sooda]

I am hardly well-acquaintanced with Iranian culture, but I was around in the late 1970s and I have read some since.

Iran, for good or worse, went through a llot of drammatic, very sudden institutional change in the last few decades. Some form of "whiplash" is all but assured. People need time to fully adjust to so much change even when they uniformly want it - and apparently they did not.

Word has it that the current Islamist regime of Iran has lost a lot of popular support. The conditions necessary for a deradicalization may well be underway.

Whiplash is a good description.. Yes. Lots of change

 

[dybmh]

Sabeel

Thanks for sharing this group with me. I've never heard of them, and it's encouraging to me to learn about them.

 

[sooda]

Thanks for sharing this group with me. I've never heard of them, and it's encouraging to me to learn about them.

Sometimes they do lecture tours in the US.. REALLY interesting.

 

[dybmh]

I have a couple of Iranian friends who go home every year for a month or so. Sharp cookies IMO.. nice ladies. The rhetoric from the Iranian "leadership" may as well be from Mars.. It just doesn't connect. Privately I have thought that both the hardcore Iranian nuts and the Likkud keep stirring the pot to stay in power.

So, this is really interesting to me. Specifically "The rhetoric from the Iranian "leadership" may as well be from Mars.. It just doesn't connect. "

This again reminds me of principle vs. practical.

In principle, most Muslims I know seem to support a strict Orthodox approach to Islamic Law. But in practice they are quite forgiving and flexible. If this is true finding common ground between Pro-Israel Jewish people and Pro-Palenstinian Muslims may be easier than most people consider.

Developing this common ground would involve acknowledging the strict Orthodox principled Islam **and** at the same time acknowledging that these principles when applied in practice are not nearly as black and white as it appears.

Just this.. simple acknowledgment and understanding that Islamic law is more and deeper than what is presented to the public would be step towards peace in two ways.

First it establishes common ground. Second acknowledgment and understanding is "currency" for Muslims. Not that they require any outsider's approval for Islamic law. But I think they would appreciate not being judged on only the public principles in the absence of practical examples.

 

[sooda]

So, this is really interesting to me. Specifically "The rhetoric from the Iranian "leadership" may as well be from Mars.. It just doesn't connect. "

This again reminds me of principle vs. practical.

In principle, most Muslims I know seem to support a strict Orthodox approach to Islamic Law. But in practice they are quite forgiving and flexible. If this is true finding common ground between Pro-Israel Jewish people and Pro-Palenstinian Muslims may be easier than most people consider.

Developing this common ground would involve acknowledging the strict Orthodox principled Islam **and** at the same time acknowledging that these principles when applied in practice are not nearly as black and white as it appears.

Just this.. simple acknowledgment and understanding that Islamic law is more and deeper than what is presented to the public would be step towards peace in two ways.

First it establishes common ground. Second acknowledgment and understanding is "currency" for Muslims. Not that they require any outsider's approval for Islamic law. But I think they would appreciate not being judged on only the public principles in the absence of practical examples.

Jews lived and prospered all over the Arab world for 2000 years. They can do it.

 

[Augustus]

I'm sure you're wrong.

That too many state and non-state actors still have in an interest in it not working, or that, historically, having numerous state and non-state actors acting in their own interests is an impediment to solving a complex problem?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Abrahamics could really talk smack after this. We could take credit for it!

No, because there are stark differences between the Abrahamics. Christians, for example, have an abundance of terrible, aweful people who blatantly refuse to acknowledve the rights, liberties, and dignity of others (going as far to demand laws to grant them special privileges so theu dont have to). Islam currently has an issue with extremists ideology. Jews at least tend to stick to themselves, and in my expetience don't really make the lives of others their concern, very much unlike the others. And Christians and Muslims habe often and for a very long time have butchered each other, Jews, and themselves. It would be a Israeli and Palestinian effort and achievement if it happened.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That too many state and non-state actors still have in an interest in it not working, or that, historically, having numerous state and non-state actors acting in their own interests is an impediment to solving a complex problem?

I do not doubt this, but the idea that the Israel-Palestinian conflict would have been solved long ago were it not for those insidious outsiders is simply naive.

 

[Augustus]

I do not doubt this, but the idea that the Israel-Palestinian conflict would have been solved long ago were it not for those insidious outsiders is simply naive.

Why do you think the conflict can be solved now, but it's 'simply naive' to think it would have been solved if 'insidious outsiders' hadn't spent decades trying to wipe Israel off the map and providing financial, material and territorial support to Palestinian resistance groups while promising them that they would get all of 'their' land back thus negating the need for a settlement which they were fundamentally opposed to anyway?

There are plenty of examples of extremely brutal conflicts that have been remedied in a decade or so, let alone 70 years. To keep a purely local conflict going for that long would be quite difficult.

 

[sooda]

Why do you think the conflict can be solved now, but it's 'simply naive' to think it would have been solved if 'insidious outsiders' hadn't spent decades trying to wipe Israel off the map and providing financial, material and territorial support to Palestinian resistance groups while promising them that they would get all of 'their' land back thus negating the need for a settlement which they were fundamentally opposed to anyway?

There are plenty of examples of extremely brutal conflicts that have been remedied in a decade or so, let alone 70 years. To keep a purely local conflict going for that long would be quite difficult.

Israel has made a point of taking more land over the years and they still don't have defined borders. They aren't the victim here, but the conflict keeps the hardliners in power and keeps US foreign aid flowing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why do you think the conflict can be solved now, but it's 'simply naive' to think it would have been solved ...

That's a good question. The quick answer is that "could" and "would" represents different thresholds.

(By the way, I also think that there is a difference between "worthy" and "likely.")

 

[Augustus]

That's a good question. The quick answer is that "could" and "would" represents different thresholds.

I still think it probable simply because sooner or later people would have had to accept what is lost is lost, and had numerous countries not been trying to destroy Israel then there would have been greater pressure on them to find a solution and fewer barriers against it.

Much of the vicious cycle that perpetuates the conflict would not have developed in the same way that it did. Adding a much more abstract dimension to a conflict changes it radically.

(By the way, I also think that there is a difference between "worthy" and "likely.")

Fair point.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Much of the vicious cycle that perpetuates the conflict would not have developed in the same way that it did.

If things were different things would have developed ... differently, precisely how and how rapidly is not at all certain - at least not to me.*

All of that aside, I rather like the "A Land For All" vision. It strikes me as a powerfully worthy one.

Take care.

* H.istory is, among other things, an unfolding butterfly effect.

 

[Augustus]

Israel has made a point of taking more land over the years and they still don't have defined borders. They aren't the victim here, but the conflict keeps the hardliners in power and keeps US foreign aid flowing.

It's not about one side being 'right' as all parties carry a lot of blame. My point was about the mutually reinforcing dynamics that have been created and have made a solution much harder to achieve.