Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses one key aspect of the conceptual paralysis that has seized most of Washington and the Western world:
A kind of mental or conceptual paralysis prevents American, European, and even Israeli policymakers -- perhaps most intolerably, Israeli policymakers -- from recognizing the Muslim sources of Arab Muslim opposition to the well-being, or permanent existence, of a Jewish (i.e., non-Muslim) sovereign state in the middle of dar al-Islam. Of course, such opposition is also shared by certain "Palestinian" islamochristian Arabs, such as Naim Ateek, or the gunrunner for the PLO Archbishop Hilarion Cappucci, or Hanan Ashrawi, the good friend of Peter Jennings. Like the Christians who helped found the Ba'athist party (such as Michel Aflaq, who "reverted" to Islam at the end of his life), these Arab "islamochristians" have sought to make their own lives tolerable, and to find a way, as Christians, to survive in the midst of a permanently hostile Arab Muslim world. The only strategy they have discovered, once they realized that the European powers no longer were going to protect them (as France, for example, had helped protect Christians in Lebanon and Syria a century ago), is that of accepting, adopting, and promoting the Muslim worldview. They echo the refusal of Muslim Arabs to permanently accept Israel as a sovereign state, or for that matter the Maronites of Lebanon as autonomous in their own Lebanese redoubts, and thereby hope to curry favor, and deflect the violence, of the Muslims among whom they live.And along with that, many "Christian" Arabs have been convinced of the intimate connection between Islam and "Arabtum" or "Uruba" or "Arabness." This is carefully encouraged by the Muslim Arabs, who believe that all Arabs, whether Christian or not, must somehow rally around Islam as the defining feature, the great achievement, the gift to all mankind, of the Arabs, in whose language the Qur'an was dictated to Muhammad, an Arab and the "best of men," who was a member of the "best of peoples." Those speakers or users of Arabic have been persuaded that this makes them "Arabs," though many of them, no doubt, are the descendants of the Christians and Jews who once populated the area before the Muslim Arab invaders arrived. They have been made to feel, they do feel, that their own ethnic identity is somehow wrapped up in the defense of Islam.
Of course they are wrong. Of course Islam does not now bode well, and never has boded well, for Christians in the Middle East (or anywhere else). Of course many of those "Christian" Arabs -- such as the Maronites and Copts -- are not Arabs at all, but rather indigenous peoples who were given Arab names, forced to use Arabic, and otherwise "arabized" -- as, over centuries, their own countries were islamized. "Christian" Arabs who, like Cappucci or Ashrawi, tried to fit in by adopting and promoting or parroting the Islamic agenda, and who as Arabs cannot bring themselves to turn their backs on Islam in the way that non-Arab Christians -- such as Christians in Pakistan and Indonesia -- have no trouble doing, may still not realize that they actually have a stake in Israel's survival as a strong and viable non-Muslim power. But not a few of the local Arab Christians, especially those who have clamored for Israeli residency cards or citizenship, or those who are simply fleeing the P.A.'s Islamic rule by leaving for Australia or Canada, have finally begun to realize that there is no hope for them under Muslim rule. For non-Muslims now used to the concept of equal treatment for minorities (word gets around, throughout the world), can no longer tolerate what they tolerated for centuries. Either the Muslims themselves will change, or the Muslim-dominated countries will empty out of non-Muslims -- as has been happening in Pakistan, in Bangladesh, and more recently, in Egypt and Lebanon, where Copts and Maronites have diminished in relative numbers and in power.It is madness to give the "Palestinians" -- i.e., those local Arabs who appropriated that name post-1967 -- any weapons more than rifles and jeeps. But the Americans do not see this. They do not see that without Israel, there is no possible purchase for the West in the Middle East anywhere closer than Ethiopia or the southern Sudan. They do not realize, or choose to realize, that the "Palestinian people" business is a recent invention, a repackaging of the old Jihad that Ahmed Shukairy (Arafat's predecessor), Azzam Pasha (Secretary-General of the Arab League in 1948, and great-uncle to Ayman al-Zawahiri) discussed in such unambiguous and naked terms.
But nowadays, nothing is too ridiculous for some who make American policy, or for the obstinate and slightly demented Ariel Sharon (who once had an idea, and now that idea has him, no matter how obviously foolish and dangerous that idea has turned out to be). They know that the "solution" exists, and that this "solution" is two states, and no discussion of the worldview of Islam, unshakeable and immutable, will change their minds. Show them the discussion by Majid Khadduri of the Law of War and Peace in Islam, show them the model of the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, and they will simply ignore it or attempt to explain it away, as if it could not possibly be true. For if it were true, if that were the basis of all Muslim treaties and agreements with Infidels, then all those treaties and agreements that have been the insane focus of the DennisRosses and the RichardHasses, and the Indyks, and Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy, and the Rogers Plan, and all the rest of it, would be seen -- as they should be seen -- as grotesque, as essentially missing the larger point. Which, of course, they all did.
Building up the "Palestinian" armory makes even less sense than buidling up the "Iraqi" army with American weaponry, or than supplying stingers to mujahideen in Afghanistan, or than allowing Pakistan to get away with its nuclear project, or than continuing to give malevolent and meretricious Egypt $2 billion in aid when Egypt is now spending $7.5 billion on arms purchases which can only conceivably be used against Infidels -- either Israel, at some future point, or possibly against Ethiopia.
Who cares if that weaponry will inevitably fall into terrorist hands, or be used by the people to whom it is given in the first place to make even more hellishly difficult the job of defending Israel? Israel itself has become an abstraction, a place where the odds are against it are unimportant, as is the ratio of length-of-border to area-of-country, and it is already the highest in the world -- why, who still remembers that phrase "secure and defensible borders" anyway? If that idea gets in the way of the "Two-State Solution," then the very idea has to go.
And since that Two-State "Solution" requires forgetting the Mandate for Palestine, forgetting the legal, historical, and moral claim of Israel to all of the territory now known as "the West Bank" (a toponym invented after 1948, for the same reasons the Romans replaced "Judea" with "Palestine"), then those claims will simply be ignored by the outside world. And many Israelis too, not less ignorant of their own history than outsiders, will forget or never knew of that claim, of their own rights.
Just look at how many people all over the world, without a moment's skepticism, have accepted the appropriation by the local Arabs of the designation "Palestinian" -- which then leads to the idiotic but plausible notion that since the place is called "Palestine" and there are these people called "Palestinians," ergo it must belong to them. What could be simpler, what could be more obvious? Many of those “Palestinians" are recent arrivals, with Egyptian or Iraqi grandparents who came in the 1920s and 1930s, illegal immigrants through borders that were, for the Jews, difficult to breach, but for the Arabs, porous. That is the kind of detail that, while well-known to both "Palestinians" and Israelis, never quite makes it to the Western press. That Western press is secure in the certainty of its own examined certainties. One of them is that Israel is an aggressor and thief of land, and that “Palestinian” Christians as well as Muslims will be better off under Islamic rule. It doesn't look that way in Bethlehem, or anywhere else where Christians live in the Middle East -- not in Alexandria, not in Cairo, not in Algeria, where all foreign Christians have been killed, not in Iraq, where new freedoms include the freedoom to kidnap, terrorize, and murder Christians, not in Syria, where only the Alawite military keep things from degenerating further, not in Lebanon where the Christians were a few decades ago a majority, but have seen their numbers, their power, their influence, their security, steadily reduced.
The day could come when “Palestinian” Christians long for the good old days in Israel, when they enjoyed complete freedom of worship, and physical security, from the very people -- the Jews of Israel -- that some of them are doing so much to undermine. They should look at the history of Christians under Islam, from Indonesia to Morocco. They might just have time to reconsider. But one doubts that enough of them will, in time, for their own good.
Ariel Sharon is surely acting foolishly as Hugh says.
But as Hugh implies, the Western powers have turned their backs on Middle Eastern Christians. Indeed, these powers have worked against Israeli cooperation with the Middle Eastern Christians. I briefly sketch this in my post in response to the David Meir-Levi article below.
Hugh, it seems to me the choice facing "palestinian" Islamochristians is pretty simple: either lie about Israel and hasten the formation of a sovereign "palestine" and survive at least until then, maybe longer if the United Nothing sends in "peacekeeping forces"... or tell the truth about Islam NOW, be branded as "Israeli Spies" or collaborators NOW, and disappear NOW.
So the choice is definite DEATH NOW, or possible relocation later... the only rational choice (for cowards) is the latter.
If they told the truth about Israel and Islam, the whole world would jump on them for "being racists" and it would be open season on them for "collaboration." But since they have jumped on the hate-Israel bandwagon, they can get that easy UN welfare, refugee status, and all those other benefits that come with being "Oppressed by the JOOOOOZ!"
Bat Ye'or describes the psychology of Islamo-Christians better than anybody. The Arab Christian need to identify with their Muslim oppressors so as not to feel powerless is repulsive, but psychologically valid. People will do almost anything to avoid admitting powerlessness. Neurosis is the substitution of an innocuous idea for a painful one. What we see here is mass neurosis resulting in an obsessive regard for Islam and Arabization. The adoption of the Muslim hatred for Jews gives a veneer of rationality for this even though the whole thing is entirely irrational.
KJ and Rebecca have made some excellent points above. There is a similar case among unregistered Christians in China, who are generally highly patriotic, despite the ill-treatment they have received at Communist hands.
This just in:
Abdullah Hints Christians Suffer Under Israeli Rule in Jerusalem
The little Hussey!
Abdullah should be reminded that if some local Arabs call themselves "Paletinians" --though they are two or three generations away from having any living connection to Mandatory Palestine (and they certainly wish us to realize that they are "Eastern Palestinians")-- he is hardly more distant from being a resident of the Hejaz, and hence a subject of Saudi Arabia. The original Emir Abdullah was plopped on top of the hastily-contirved "Emirate of Transjordan" by the British, and kept there by Glubb Pasha, Alec Kirkbride, and a cast of thousands of British. His father, "plucky little king" Hussein, was a great spender of C.I.A. funds as well, which kept him in the style to which, in certain lavish Western hotel suites and residences, he was accustomed. All that can end quite quickly, if and when the Western world decides that the continued transfer of money from Infidels to Muslims, even those states so inaccurately described as "allies," were to end, and many of us not only recognize jizyah payments designed to keep the recipients happy, but want an end to all jizyah.
He is taking American indulgence for granted. That is a mistake.
from above: "People will do almost anything to avoid admitting powerlessness. "
Since Islam has proved itself to be inadequate for humanity, as evidenced by its 100% track record of failure, isn't this axiom "People will do almost anything to avoid admitting powerlessness. " also central to Islam's continuation? Islam forces humanity to its knees -- forces the pious to prostrate themselves before Muhammad's grotesque example, and completely surrender to Allah's arbitrary and unexamined law. Who could feel more impotent than Muslim thrall, bowing before Muhammad, and crushed by Allah's will?
Islam mercilessly crushes the questioning of its authority. The Muslim may NEVER turn questioning eyes towards Islam -- so he only may focus on his internal lack, or the world outside of Islam to explain his anger, frustration, and rage at his own impotency. If the Muslim questions Islam, then Islam mandates his destruction. A Muslim does not have "I reject Islam" or "It is Islam which is making me suffer" as options. For both the internal examination, or the larger one which focuses the Muslim's attention outside of Dar al Islam, the is only one conclusion which is permissable -- that is "More Islam."
And if his percieved suffering continues, if his humiliation continues, as one might expect since the answer "More Islam" is clearly so lacking, then Islam provides for that eventuality too. Islam provides ready scapegoats for the developing rage in the Muslim heart.
Islam is humanity's perfect storm... 1.3 billion adherents trapped inside a broken system, but one rigged to guarantee it will never reform. One rigged to focus the inevitable rage and anger of its adherents away from its core. One which guarantees the more it makes it's adherents suffer, the more likely they are to believe more in Islam, and to misdirect their impotent rage against an innocent external world...
Islam first robs the believer of worth, and then exploits this humiliation by demanding more Islam. The Muslim is convinced that the balm of his suffering is to become more pious, or to focus his discomfort and rage against external and preferably non-Muslim scapegoats.
So Islam first inflicts a wound -- and then promises to fix the wound by inflicting more wounds. It is a religion of destruction and devastation. Witness how Islam undermines all it comes in contact with, witness its subsequent paving over entire cultures, religions, languages, and histories --
Islam -- soul-less juggernaut...
The Muslim -- a soul-less slave of Islam.
jsla, well put.
See URL for a good nominee for IslamoChristian Dhimmi of the year (Greek-Orthodox church official Atalla Hanna).
Commentary and link courtesy of the Justify This! blogsite:
Mass Grave Uncovered In Lebanon
A mass grave has been uncovered in Lebanon near a former Syrian run prison. You'd think that the atrocities commited by the Syrians against their Arab brethren would cause some in the middle east to re-think their stance on Syria. Well, not in Israel where a group of high profile, "loyal" Israeli-Arab leaders have formed a committee to show their support of the Islamoterrorist regime in Syria and to denounce their Israeli Jewish leadership and the American "aggressors", (wherever ye find them I guess).
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3178730,00.html
Why don't we just call it for what it is? Racism. Arab Christians would much rather support Arab Muslims because they are of the same race. They know they would be safer under Israel and many of the Chrisitan Palestinians resisted having their land turned over to the PA for governance. But they aren't grateful. These Islamochristians demand 200% justice for all Arabs, not realizing that the Muslims wouldn't give their Christian brethren the same consideration. Obviously, I don't include the non-Arab Christians in the Middle East such as the Copts, Assyrians and Chaldeans. They have their own identity and they are less concerned about their "Arabness" and more reasonable towards Israel. The Maronites are a different kettle of fish. They weren't as hostile towards Israel before they had their civil war. But the rest, who claim to be both Arab and Christian and support "the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people", screw 'em. I've had enough of their nonesense of equivocating being spit upon by a yeshiva student to a Christian pogrom.
"Why don't we just call it for what it is? Racism. Arab Christians would much rather support Arab Muslims because they are of the same race..."
-- from a posting above
This is too simple. The idea of "Arabness" is one which the "Arabs" -- whoever they are -- have defined mainly as a linguistic matter. Those who speak and use Arabic in the Middle East are then considered "Arabs" and what's more, they have been convinced to believe that they are "Arabs." This is how the Muslim conquerors, bearing not only Islam but the Arabic language, in which the Qur'an had to be read, had to be memorized, and which, as the language of the unforgiving conqueror, had to be learned if one were to survive and thrive. We have all been fooled -- fooled by the Arab-named non-Arab Christians and Jews who were so important as translators, fooled by the so-called "Arabs" who were one generation away from their Christian and Jewish non-Arab parents and who form such an important part of that "high Islamic civilization" for which such extravagant claims are made, and which, if one were to remove the Christians and Jews, or those who were the children of Christians and Jews, and remove as well the Persians, never thoroughly arabized, one would find very little there there, or at least a lot less than the Arabs with their exaggerated view of themselves would like us to believe existed.
Maronites -- what are they? They use Arabic. They know Arabic. Many of them have Arabic names. So what? Why are they to be considered Arabs? Were not the Maronites of Lebanon there, before the arrival of Arab Muslims, before the existence of Islam? They didn't simply expire. They continued to live. No doubt some converted, under the pressure of Islam's conquerors, to Islam. But those who didn't, didn't, finding refuge in the mountains of the Lebanon. Why should they, today, be considered, or consider themselves, "Arabs" at all? They aren't. They don't have to accept that designation. They are perfectly free to reject it, and many do. Of course, for their own reasons, the Muslim Arabs would wish that all those who speak Arabic would identify themselves as "Arabs" and then, in a second move, precisely because they are those "Arabs," as defenders of the faith, that faith being Islam, with which Arabs are so identified and so identify.
But I'm not sure that the word "racism" applies. Arabs are not a race. It is more like a continuous con game, where those conquered by Islam also have to endure arabization, and in various ways come to accept the arguments offered by their masters -- that they are, in fact, "Arabs" and should be proud of it, in fact should forget their previous identities, histories, their everything. It's worked. Let's see if it can be made to un-work, to un-ravel, to come apart, by an appeal to nothing more than common sense, and a knowledge of history.
The links below quote passages from an account by a Greek monk of the experience of Christian and Jewish dhimmis in Israel while under Arab/Muslim control. There are other, related links to these accounts --given in instalments-- on the same site.
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/08/greek-monks-account-of-1834-uprising.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/08/greek-monks-account-of-1834-arab.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/10/repercussions-of-greek-revolt-in-land.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/10/arabs-in-israel-against-greek-revolt.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/10/repercussions-in-israel-in-1821-of.html
Hugh,
I don't consider Maronites to be Arabs. That's why I didn't accuse them of "racism". I said that their experience of the civil war soured them on Israel, which is understandable because the Muslims were the victors of that war (well that and the onslaught of anti-Israel propaganda in Lebanon). You do bring up a good point that "Arab" is hard to define as a race because most of the Arabs of the Middle East are an eclectic mix of peoples that range from African, Indian to Caucasian. I guess the only "pure" Arabs we would be able to find would be the amongst most of the remaining Bedouin tribes and inside the Saudi interior. But I'm not interested in how much Arab blood a Middle Easterner has in his body, I'm interested if he thinks of himself as an Arab that belongs to a greater Arab race. Whether it is true or not, I think, is beside the point. Let's take Our Edward for example. He is most likely of Coptic origin but he considers himself an Arab and he sees himself as part of the Arab race so he identifies with Arab Nationalism or Pan-Arabism (he can't identify with Islamism because he is a Christian). By doing this he excludes the Jews because they can never be Arab (eventhough some may be more Arab in origin than Our Edward) and he includes people like the Maronites who are mostly not Arab. He feels kinship with Arabs and Arabic speaking non-Arabs and feels no kinship with the Jews, thus he is more supportive of Arab causes (shaped by Islam) rather than Jewish causes or just remaining neutral. I may be going in circles here, but my point is that whether "Arab" is a race or a linguistic indentifier much like "Semite" is not important because these "Arab" Christians see themselves as part of a race and since tribalism is so strong in that part of the world, they are more likely to support "Arab" causes even if they recieve no benefit from it. Take a look at some of the Israeli-Arab Christians that represent some of the worst PLO thugs in court. Are they under seige in Israel by the Israelis? Why do they do it? Why do they consider Palestinian Muslims their brothers and the Israeli Jews their foreign occupiers? Racism doesn't explain it all, but I definitely think it factors in.
I saw this as a proud American Jew who supports Israel. I feel nothing but pity for these islamochristians. They try to be more Catholic than the Pope(er in this case Mufti)and it doesn't get them much. It must be such a sad hollow life.
Arab is not a race but a linguistic and cultural construct. An Arab can be a blue-eyed blond Syria or a Black Sudanese. What defines one as an Arab is what language they speak at home. In fact, Lebanese and Palestinian Christians actually spoke Aramaic (Syriac) until very recent times and the Assyrians still keep thier language.
As for race/ethnicity, the indigenous Christians of Nazareth, Bethlehem, Haifa etc. are for the most part descended from those Jews who became Christian at the time of the apostles and during the early church period. Many Palestinian Muslims are probably also descended from the Hebrew Christians but whose anscestors were forced to convert to Islam. Because of this, it is not uncommon to find the same family names among Jews, Christians and Muslims (Halevi/Halaby for example).
Unfortunately, Except for Assyrians, Copts and some Lebanese, many of these Christians have lost their sense of nationhood. Today almost everyone sees the choice in the Holy Land as between a Zionist Israel or a Islamic Palestinian Authority. This is tragic. Just as Jews demanded their own state and Muslims demand Sharia, the Christians should demand full territorial rights to thier ancient homelands. If this means self-contained Christian Cantons in Nazareth, Bethlehem, and Ramullah as a first step, that should be the goal. We should not oppress Muslims or Jews but the land rendered holy by the footsteps of the Incarnate God should be a place where He is honoured by the culture and the state.
It is time that we re-awaken a revolutionary consciousness among the Christians just as Zionism did for Jews and Salafism did for Muslims. Christians should no longer be content with the role of victim. "Let God arise and his enemies will scatter" should be our battle cry.
Middle Eastern Christians should no longer just cut and run to the west as pathetic refugees but should be willing to fight and die for the Faith and the Holy Land. This means the liberation of all the key cities of Christianity: Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople! A little bit of Christian militance is well overdue. If this means our warriors face martyrdom in the struggle, then God's glory awaits them.
Does this mean that I'm absorbing Islamic ideas by dividing the world between Cristendom and conflict (Dar al Islam vs Dar Al Harb)? Well the Muslims absorbed that idea from us to begin with. Of course the first step will be to overthrow Western secularism and restore Cristendom to Europe and the Americas. Then we can launch the 10th and final Crusade. If we believe Christ is truly the Ruler of the Universe, then we need to start acting like it. Viva Cristo Rey!
Provo:
"My Kingdom is not of this world" -- St. John 18:36
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Provoslavni, you're an idiot.
Arabs are a race. What do you think the Bedouin are? Bedouins are the original Arabs. That's why in the 6th century Bedouin was synonymous with Arab. Like I said before, all of the people who call themselves Arab are not all ethnically Arab but an eclectic mix of Arabs, Africans, Perso-Indians, and Mediterranean peoples. That doesn't mean Arabs aren't a race.
As for the "Palestinians" being descendents of Jews and Christians, that's pure bullshit. That's PLO propaganda right there. I've heard this argument that the Palestinians are the "real Jews" thousands of times from Muslims and that the Ashkenazim are the "fake" Jews. They usually accuse them of all being Khazari or Slavs. And you are paying way too much attention to the last names. That doesn't prove that they are descendents of the Jews. Did you know that there are Assyrian Christians that have the last name Israel? Does that make them Jewish too?
Christians will never get "full territorial rights" in Israel. It's not their land. Just because Jesus (a Jew) walked on that land doesn't entitle Christians to territorial control over Israel. Israel was and forever will be the homeland of the Jews and your replacement theology (which I find completely bizarre coming from a post-Vatican II Catholic, that is unless you belong to Mel Gibson's church...) cannot change that fact. You only have theological justifications for why Christians should have territorial control over parts of Israel. That's the only thing the Muslims have as well. The Jews have both theological and historical justifications and since we are all of different religions and can't agree on who's theological justification has the most merit, then I'm afraid that the historical justification trumps all.
You wrote:
"It is time that we re-awaken a revolutionary consciousness among the Christians just as Zionism did for Jews and Salafism did for Muslims. Christians should no longer be content with the role of victim. "Let God arise and his enemies will scatter" should be our battle cry."
Hmm...does His enemies include the Jews along with the Muslims? You've made it clear that the Christians were the victims of both the Muslims and Jews in Israel, so tell me, does it?
LOL. Your call for a Christian theocracy and "10th Crusade" deserves no further comment from me because it illustrates how ridiculous you are.
Robert:
"Occupy till I come!" St. Luke 19:13
-
"Bestow Thy bounties upon the new nation which is called by Thy Name; Make glad in Thy might those who lawfully govern, that by them we may be led to victory over our adversaries, having in Thine aid a weapon of peace and a trophy invincible." Kontakion of the Holy Cross (Byzantine Rite).
-
"Whose Kingdom is not of the spirit of this world, May all nations serve Thee, O Lord...
To Whom all the nations of the earth are subject, May all nations serve Thee, O Lord...
That the peoples of this world may know themselves subject to Thee, We beseech Thee, hear us..." From the Litany (Roman Rite)of the Feast of Christ the King.
-
"O Lord, save Thy people and bless Thine inheritance. Grant victory to the Orthodox Emperor over Thy adversaries; and by virtue of Thy Cross preserve Thy Christian Empire." Original form of the Troparian 6th to 15th Centuries
A very particular religious service is being alluded to here. Kontakion, Troparion. But why "provoslavni" and not "pravoslavni" and why "pravoslavni" at all since the rite in question is observed far to the south of Muscovy and Vladimir-Suzdal and other places where Russian Orthodox lavras ordinarily are found?
Pravoslavniy? Not at all.
Hugh:
I am Byzantine but I'm neither Russian nor ethnically Slavic so the only reason is convenience of spelling (I'm prone to typos). It's also so I can can remember my screen name and it's a whole lot easier than something like "Jon354867" :)
Igor:
I find it absolutely amazing that it is considered completely acceptable for Muslims to push for Islamic states and for Israeli's to demand a Jewish state but when Catholics and Orthodox seek the same political rights to defend our fellow Christians, we are labeled theocrats, reactionaries or (to use your term) idiots.
1. If Arabs were a race, then they would have certain physical characteristics in common. If you believe a blue eyed blonde Syrian has the same racial characteristics as a black African Sudanese, then you are blind.
Bedouins are true Arabs in that they originated in Arabia. So what? So did the advanced Jewish kingdom of Himyar and the Christian kingdom of the Ghassanids. All were Arabians. So were the three Jewish tribes that Muhammed exterminated.
The dictionary defines an Arab as:
1. A member of a Semitic people inhabiting Arabia, whose language and Islamic religion spread widely throughout the Middle East and northern Africa from the seventh century and/or,
2. A member of an Arabic-speaking people or an individual originating from Arabic speaking people.
3. A breed of horse.
If a person falls under either of the first two categories, he can rightly be considered an Arab regardless of the origins of his ancestry, just like a full-blood Aztec is considered a Latino because he speaks Spanish.
Actually the very concept of race is a myth but culture and language are very real. The Nazis (talk about idiots!) thought Jews were a race and had no regard for the religious or cultural self-definitions of the Jewish people. They even had legal definitions of "half-Jew" and "quarter-Jew" etc. This is an impossiblity. Either you are Jewish or you are not. Ask any Rabbi.
That's why I think so-called Messianic Judaism is a syncretic absurdity. Since my own maternal ancestry is Jewish and I loved my Sephardic grandfather dearly, I will always honour my Jewish heritage, but as a Christian I believe it would be disrespectful to Judaism and to my own faith if I were to falsely claim to be Jewish myself.
--
You wrote "As for the "Palestinians" being descendents of Jews and Christians, that's pure bullshit."
So where did they come from? Did all the Christians of Nazareth come out of Arabia? These people were always there. Judea/Samaria/Palestine was never empty of people. Of course there have been constant admixtures of Greeks, Romans, Crusaders, Turks etc. but that doesn't change the fact that many of the Christian families can trace their ancestry in an unbroken line for generations. Because of the prevalence of cousin marriage, many may even almost exclusive ancestry to their families land and patrimony in Israel.
Also, would you deny the rightful claims of the few dozen Samaritan who still exist. They are not Jews but clearly they've been there for at least 2200 years.
--
You wrote "Christians will never get "full territorial rights" in Israel. It's not their land. Just because Jesus (a Jew) walked on that land doesn't entitle Christians to territorial control over Israel. Israel was and forever will be the homeland of the Jews"
See above about Christain families living there in an unbroken line back generations. If it is the (I suspect you mean exclusive)homeland of the Jews, whose claim is stronger. How many Israeli's ancestors lived in Europe or Russia or somewhere else since thier expulsion by the Romans under Hadrian. This expulsion for the most part did not include Hebrew Christians many of whome had crossed the Jordan to wait out the revolt and then returned. From the early fourth century till the Muslim conquest, Palestine was almost exclusively Christian. So whose historical justification trumps all?
--
You wrote: "Did you know that there are Assyrian Christians that have the last name Israel? Does that make them Jewish too"
Again, being descended from Jews doesn't make you one. That's a nazi-tainted myth.
As for Assyrians being named "Israel" that is because they are a Christian people and yes all Catholic and Orthodox people pray for "Israel" in the Liturgy and we mean the Christian Church. This is not "replacement theology" since we don't believe God has replaced or cast away anyone but do believe that the Church is the completion of Israel by spiritually grafting all baptized into Christ on to the line of Abraham. Blood and race and parenthood have no meaning. Look in the Tanakh and see all the prophets who predicted that all nations would come to Zion. To us the Temple/Zion is Christ and so there can be NO theological justifications for any particular piece of territory in a strictly political sense. Remember, in the ancient Roman Empire, Judaism was a missionary religion just like Christianity.
So my justification of a Christian claim on Jerusalem (and Constantinople) is historical. That it is a sacred relic to us is also historical, not theological. If Christ has died and risen in Zimbabwe then I would make the same claim there. However, Also, I never asserted an exclusive claim against Jews or Muslims or anyone else.
You wrote: "Hmm...does His enemies include the Jews along with the Muslims? You've made it clear that the Christians were the victims of both the Muslims and Jews in Israel, so tell me, does it?"
The quote about enemies being scattered is from Psalm 68. This is a Jewish hymn as well as a Christian one. His enemies would include anyone who persecutes His people, whether they are Muslims, Kach fanatics, Communists or even other misguided Christians. The counterpart to this is that all Christians are commanded to love their enemies and do good to those who persecute us.
Finally: "Your call for a Christian theocracy and "10th Crusade" deserves no further comment from me because it illustrates how ridiculous you are."
I did not call for a "Theocracy" since that is not possible in this world until the perousia. What I called for was a revolutionary and anti-secularist consciousness among Christians so that we restore our rightful role in our own communities and bring about the revival of Cristendom. I also support the same right for Hindus, Buddhists and Jews to live according to their customs since all of us are capable of living in peace with each other and preserve the integrity of our communities. Unfortunately, Islam is inable to do this because of their ideological committment to world conquest and the imposition of Dhimmitude on the rest of us.
Provoslavni,
This is my last reply to you because we clearly have a difference of opinion and we will not be able to convince each other regardless of how many times we reply to each post.
1) Arabs do have certain characteristics in common. The fact that you chose to compare the most un-Arab Arabs (Syrians and Sudanese) does not mitigate this point. Syrians are probably the most diverse nationiality (they were also diverse before the Arab conquests) in the Middle East that can range from light skinned and blue eyed to dark skinned and brown eyed and the Sudanese are not considered to be as Arab as much as the Saudis, that is because the Sudanese are a combination of black African and Arab ancestry. That's why many people refer to them as Afro-Arabs and not Arabs. Some Yeminites also fall into this category. As for the Arabian Jewish tribes, you do know that many of them were converts to Judaism much like the Falasha? Yes, "Arab" is mostly a linguisitic indentifier (Hugh pointed this out earlier) much like Semite is, but unlike Semite, Arab is also a racial identifier and that is why many of those people who are Arabized consider themselves to be part of a greater Arab race. Given the success of Arab imperialism in the Middle East, the word "Arab" becomes problematic for several reasons but there is definitely a racial component to it. But this is pointless to bring up because you don't think race exists and that it's a "Nazi" construct.
2) Messianic Judaism is absurd but not for its syncreticism. It is absurd because it was a religion cooked up by Protestants that wanted to deceive Jews into becoming Christian by emphasizing their "Jewishness". That is why I find it insulting. I don't think there is anything wrong with Judaic Christianity per se. Afterall, that is the type of Christianity that James, the brother of Jesus, followed. But in the end, Paul's version of Christianity won and it de-emphazied the Torah observance that was integral to James' Christianty. Messianic Judaism is inauthentic for the same reason that Madonna's Kabbalah is inauthentic, it is a bastardized revival of an old concept.
3) Regarding the Jewish and "Christian" ancestry of the "Palestinians", I was speaking in broad terms. A few of them may very well be descended from Jews, but to claim that the "Palestinians" were either all Jewish or Christian at one point that mostly converted to Islam is an absurd suggestion. There have been huge migrations and demographic changes (far too complicated to go into detail here) in Palestine and since many of those people who call themselves "Palestinians" today are recent arrivals (18th century, the earliest), it makes this claim pretty dubious. But I do believe that those Christian pilgrims that remained in Palestine for religious reasons (just like some of the Jewish pilgrims), SOME of them may have had Jewish ancestry. But let's keep in mind, many of these pilgrims were also Greek and Latin in origin, so the sample of Palestinian Christians with Jewish ancestry would be rather small and insignificant. I'm sorry but that doesn't entitle them to a "Christian canton" nor do I think that Christian historical claims to certain cities in Israel trump those of the Jews (especially Jerusalem!).
4) Israel isn't "exclusive". Historically, it has always allowed aliens to dwell within its borders. Is modern day Israel nativist? Yes it is, much like Europe was pre-WWII (and some say still is). For security reaons, Israel cannot allow itself to adopt an American assimilationist policy in regards to non-Jews (non-Jews can still become citizens but there are many restrictions). It may be unfortunate for many Christians who wish the Jews well and do want to live in the Holy Land, but given the unique history of the Jews, I really don't blame them for going this route.
5) Samaritans are a tiny minority in Israel and they have dual Israeli and "Palestinian" citizenship. Nobody is denying them anything. They are officially recongized as Jews in Israel and officially recongized as Arabs in the Disputed Territories.
6) I brought up the Assyrian Israel surname in order to dispell the notion that you can tell if a family has Jewish ancestry based on their surname. Assyrians speak Aramaic (and Arabic) so it isn't a surprise if they have Jewish sounding last names. That doesn't necessarily mean they have Jewish ancestry (I'm trying to avoid using the word "race" since you don't believe it exists).
7) To me, a "revival of Christendom" is basically the same thing as a Christian theocracy. Sure, it's not a "true" theocracy because Jesus has not returned and the earth has not been remade, but generally speaking it is a theocracy since you said so yourself that the secularist government would have been overthrown.
Thanks Igor for the discussions. Even where we disagree I think we are for the most point on the same side as regards the Islamic threat and I'll ignore being called an idiot since anonymous polemics often has a lot of hyperbole and we can take positions far more extreme in cyberspace than we would in the real world. That's helps make it food for thought.
1. I don't deny that there are physical racial characteristics only that they scientifically determinate of the nature of the person. Of course Scandinavians are for the most part physically different than Chinese but it is their culture that shapes their character. Radicalized Muslims are a threat regardless of their race.
2. WOW! I agree with you 100%. Amen on this one.
3. Remember, I've never denied the legitimate religious and cultural claims of the Jews, but I will continue to re-affirm the rightful claims of indigenious Christians. Perhaps these claims aren't completely in conflict. Food for thought?
4. I don't advocate that every Christian be allowed to settle in Israel (although all should have the right of Pilgrimage). I advocate that indigenous Christians and their descendants be allowed the right of return. I find it unjust that my mother, who has never set foot in the Middle East, can become an Israeli citizen tommorrow but a Christian whose family has lived in Nazareth or Bethlehem since (at least) Roman times (including many people born there) has to go on a US passport with tourist visa.
5. This is how it should be for the Samaritans. Maybe the indigenous Christians should have a similar legal status as both Israelis and Palestinians.
6. The prevalence of the same names is only one thing symbolic of common origins. Why do so many Israelis object to doing Human DNA comparisons on the populations to settle the issue?
7. There has never been a Christian theocracy and can't be, nor should the church rule state or vice-versa. Instead, a revival of Cristendom would mean that Christian principles of peace, justice would guide the state and a certain synergy would result. Christianity cannot be linked to capitalism, socialism, or any other ideology but the church can teach the meaning of justice and ethics. That is why an organization like the European Christian Political Movement (ECPM) is the fastest growing movement of parties and civil organizations in Europe (see http://www.ecpm.tk/ for more information) and explicitly Christian parties have actually taken power in places like Poland, Slovakia, and Georgia.
I know this was your last reply but I appreciate someone who can debate with facts (even to an idiot). I hope I see your postings about other issues on this site.
Provo
Well, we seem to agree on more than we had thought.
This issue is and has always been Islam. I only brought up racism because some so-called Arab Christians identify themselves as (whether correctly or incorrectly) being the brothers of the Arab Muslims. The fact that they would support Muslims over Jews, when the Muslims would treat them far worse than the Israelis ever did, I find baffling and I attribute part of that to racism. To these so-called Arab Christians, the Muslims become the ingroup and the Jews become the outgroup. Although Christians are oppressed in the Middle East, they do not all support the Muslim narrative due to "oppression", some have other motives and sometimes that motive turns out to be bigotry. I believe we should hold them responsible for that bigotry the same way we would hold Abe Foxman responsible for his anti-Christian bigotry.
Yes, I do support the right of Palestinian Christians who are living in the diaspora to come back to Israel. They don't have to prove their lineage as far as I'm concerned. I would much rather have them live in Israel than the Muslim squatters. The Christians have a right to govern their community in Israel but I object to a Christian canton because I think it is unecessary. They should have representation in the Knesset that is proportionate to their population, a type of affirmative action for Christians, and I don't think there would be much of a problem. I don't think Zionism is in conflict with Christian self-rule in Israel, compromises and changes in the law can be made to accomodate them better but I think it is very important that Israel remain a Jewish state.
Politically, Christians may not be equal under all aspects of the law (such as limitations on buying land), but they would be well taken care of and they could govern their own religious and school systems. The reality is that granting 100% equality for Christians and Jews would undermine the concept of the Jewish State, technically this is unfair but it isn't apartheid nor is it too onerous for the Christians. Unfettered Christian immigration and no restrictions on prostelyzation would spell disaster for Israel. Israelis do not want Israel to become a Christian state even if all the Christians are of Jewish origin. This may sound offensive, but if Judaism was a missionary religion and it spread in Russia to the extent that it became the majority religion (but the majority of Jews were of Russian origin), it would transform Russia's culture into something different. The same would happen to Israel if there were no checks and balances in place. Much like how Orthodox Christianity defines Russia (even the athiest Russians), the same can be said about Judaism and Israel.
As for the DNA issue, the Israelis object to it because some of their parents or grandparents may have been converts and they are no longer practicing Jews. If we went soley by DNA, then the non-practicing children of converts wouldn't be eligible for citizenship. Also, many of the Jews who came from different parts of the world such as the Falasha are mostly converts. The majority of them would fail this DNA test because they are black. Should we all ship them back to that anarchic hellhole Ethiopia just to make a political point about who are the "real" Jews? It would be terribly cruel and unjust to strip the citizenship of a loyal Falasha and grant it to treasonous Palestinian Muslim who happens to pass the DNA test. DNA tests are completely useless for deciding who has a "birth right" to a specific country.
Ok, I seem to have misinterpreted what you meant by "Christendom" and I apologize for that. I have no problem with Christians fighting for their values democratically (Abe Foxman, on the other hand, does). At the very worst, Christians who fight for their values get compared to Robertson and Falwell, Jews get compared to Meir Kahane. And Israelis are so secularized that a political party that emphasized Jewish values would not get elected unless they had a sure way to end terrorism in Israel. But then again, the Israeli public is so desperate for peace that any party who could end terrorism would get elected regardless of their platform.
I just read over my initial post and I realize it was really harsh in tone. I sincerely apologize for calling you an idiot, I let my emotions get the best of me. I've had my share of run-ins with Christian bigots who think Zionism is the greatest evil in the modern world but I'm glad I found out you aren't one of those Christians. Some of your points sounded like the propaganda that I would hear from them, especially the Palestinians being the descendents of the Jews. That really set me off because they only use that "fact" in order to rewrite history and claim that the Ashkenazi Jews are all Khazari and that Jesus was a "Palestinian" and so forth. Again, I apologize, you are neither an idiot nor a bigot.
Igor
Thank you Igor, I'm happy to find out we really are allies. In truth, when posting anonimously, we often sound more harsh or extreme than we really are.
I know that I am guilty of this kind of polemics. Like when I advocated (in a response to another article) putting a cross over the Dome of the Rock, my attack is aimed at Muslims because I have the old Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem in my mind. I realize that my Jewish brothers and sisters can take offense and that is not my intention. Jerusalem is the primary and essential Sacred Site for both Jews and Christians while it is of only tertiary importance to Muslims. For that reason we Christians and Jews should stand together to resist any desecration of the Holy City.
The bad blood, bigotry and hatred that has too often effected Jewish-Christian relations is one of the great tragedies (and crimes) of history. Although we can't truly repent for our ancestors, we can commit that these crimes never happen again. Jews and Christians (and all decent people) face the same threat from Islamic aggression and we must be friends even if we disagree on certain minor points. On the other hand, hyperbole and radical polemics can lead to some interesting and enlightening exchanges of ideas and I have truly enjoyed this exchange with you.