A few useful observations about the folly of supporting a Palestinian state. Will he be added to the worldwide effigy-burning schedule? "US candidate Giuliani warns on Palestinian state," from Agence France-Presse:
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Republican 2008 White House front-runner Rudolph Giuliani warned Tuesday it was not in the interest of the United States to help create a Palestinian state that would "support terrorism."
In an article in the journal Foreign Affairs, the former New York mayor also said too much emphasis had been placed on Israeli-Palestinian peace talks which he said just brought up the same issues "again and again."
[...]
He argued that the problem for Palestinians since the Islamist movement Hamas won parliamentary elections last year, was not a "lack of statehood" but good governance.
Not to mention the widely divergent standards of "good governance" enshrined in Sharia and Western civil law.
"Too much emphasis has been placed on brokering negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians -- negotiations that bring up the same issues again and again," he wrote.
"It is not in the interests of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism," Giuliani wrote.
Giuliani returned the Saudi bribe offered to him after 9/11, and that shows where his priorities lie - with the American people, and justice for those who died.
Now, if only someone could get Olmert to think like Rudy, and get rid of the State Department, we could be on a winning streak.
This is very encouraging.
However, I just have to wonder - if Giuliani becomes president (and I do hope he does) will he stick to this position and bring and end to the ridiculous Oslo peace process?
Or will he, like other people of good intention before him, succumb to the major pressure of oil lobbyists and their Arab benefactors?
This has always been the problem with Washington's friendship with Israel. There are truly good intentions toward Israel, but in a market-driven nation, economics will almost always win out.
Anybody with half a brain would have given Rice a shoe in the butt way back when she said "Disrespect for the Holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States. We honor the sacred books of all the blabla gagaga....."
Tancredo & Giuliani and we'll be rockin' and rollin'!
you can't totally blame Rice and Bush when the Israeli government is completely willing to go along with the charade.
It is also not in the interest of the US to keep sending money over there. If he is elected, I hope he takes up the issue of sending money to the PA and like-minded nations.
A start, but not strong enough. The main point he should have made is this: not only a so-called "Palestinian" state, but any further surrender by Israel of territory to which it has legal, historic, and moral title (which is to say, every square inch or dunam it currently possesses or controls) will merely whet, not sate, Arab Muslim appetites.
He should go further. The whetting of those appetites by any further Israeli concessions will also feed into Muslim triumphalism. "We are winning against Israel" is not a sentiment one wishes the Arabs to feel, for it will feed into their pressure on other areas, not just the obvious places akin to Israel in the Muslim view because they were once part of Dar al-Islam, once ruled by Muslims, such as Spain, Sicily, Greece, the Balkans, Bulgaria, Rumania, much of Hungary, much of Russia, almost all of India, but also hearten Muslims in Western Europe as they attempt, through the steady and well-financed campaigns of Da'wa, through the deployment of the Money Weapon (funding those mosques, those madrasas, those Western hirelings from ex-diplomats and public relations agents to lawyers determined to silence all criticism of Islam), and of course demographic conquest (the continued immigration, and the huge families which, even if they become a little less huge, remain larger, by several times, the average non-Muslim family -- the statistics over the past three decades for the Muslim population grimly reveal what, if nothing is done, will inevitably result).
The Arab Muslim siege on Israel is without end. The Slow Jihadists of Fatah (who like pocketing money from the Infidels, and need, therefore, to present a less menacing front) and the Fast Jihadists of Hamas share the exact same goal; they differ only on matters of tactics and timing. It being a matter of Islam, they have successfully enrolled the world's Muslims in the Lesser Jihad against Israel. But if, as part of its strategy to divide the Camp of the Infidels (still unaware that it is a camp, a camp defined by the non-Islamness of its members) heightens the awareness, among non-Arab Muslims, of Islam as a vehicle of Arab supremacy, it may find that some of those unhappy non-Arab Muslims, recognizing the truth of that assertion, will lessen or even drop their opposition to Israel, just as the less-Muslim Kemalists, and the less-Muslim regime of the Shah, prompted no doubt by anti-Arab sentiments, managed to have good relations with, and did as little as it could to further, the Jihad against Israel.
Giuliani has some good advisers. Martin Kramer is one. Giuliani also has some, however, such as Norman Podhoretz, who are Bush loyalists and enthusiasts for the folly of Tarbaby Iraq, people given to extreme remarks about "World War IV," people who have been incapable of analyzing why the goals in Iraq not only do not make sense, but if they were to be achieved, would do nothing to weaken, to divide and demoralize, the larger Camp of Islam, while a prompt American withdrawal will lead, inevitably, to the pre-existing sectuarian and ethhic fissures widening, and bringing in support (men, money, materiel) from co-religioinists outside, which can only, from the point of view of Infidels, be a good thing.
...HELP create a Palistinian state that supports terrorism?.....
....they are already there...
no more foreign aid to Muslim countries...not one more dime....
With Olmert in charge, does it really matter?
Ballsy Rudy. I wonder if he will ever get elected.
The media campaign against him will increase after this statement.
I love that Rudy "gets it".
Hugh, I agree that he should go further, but even to have made such a statement being a major candidate is refreshing.
Rudy was just stating the obvious, from a common sense standpoint, to those who dwell in the world of the sane.
As Hugh has stated however, his loyalty to the current administration's Iraq policy is troubling.
I just don't understand why now? Does Rudy just come out and say this? It's true but didn't we know it 9-11?
The Bushes are oil men and Saudi can do no wrong.
Rudy does not swing that way.
To United States citizen jihad watchers:
I'm looking for at least two people in every state of the Union who would be willing to purchase a copy of Robert Spencer's Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't and mail it to one of the senators in your state. I'm organizing an effort to get the book simultaneously to all 100 senators, in order to send a strong message. If you are interested in being involved, please leave a comment at www.jihadawareness.blogspot.com. No need to leave your real name, but do say what state you live in. Once we have at least two people from every state, we can agree on a mailing date and then each of us can mail a copy of the book on that date. If we get more than two people per state, we can send copies of the book to the House of Representatives as well.
Right before we do the mailing, we might issue a short press release to newspapers in every state, and in that way announce and briefly explain the mailing.
I started posting this at Jihad Watch only yesterday, and by day’s end we already had eight senators covered.
kutabeach says:
"I love that Rudy "gets it".
I've seen similar posts here for other candidates.
As far as I am concerned none of them gets it until they identify Islam as the problem.
They don't have to issue a press release to announce that. They need not try to impress us of their knowledge of Islam with use of words such as "jihad" and "caliphate". They can do it in other ways. Politicians know the art of conveying messages by using symbols, doublespeak, signals, innuendo, and intimation without using exact terms quite well. But the message they should be sending to indicate they get it, is that Islam is the problem. Any one of them who wants to continue carrying the Bush banner forward on Iraq/Afghanistan/Kosovo nation building does not recognize the root problem. If they don't see the problem, they are not going to fix it.
Yes, I know some say Hunter and Tancredo understand the threat best of all, but where is the evidence? Where are those signals and hints and symbols. I listened to Tancredo's poorly conveyed statements about Mecca and Medina, and I've read many interpretations. I'm sorry, but that is not enough. Identifying the problem may not get them elected but it should certainly open eyes and start a real debate.
I've seen the arguments that politicians cannot announce a position directly against Islam because it's too incendiary. Well, at this point it looks like sometime during this campaign Hunter and/or Tancredo are going to have to get a little "incendiary" if they want some more recognition in the MSM and get more votes. If they know Islam is the problem but are being cautious for political reasons, they they lack the courage it needs to be my President and leader of the free world. They should take some inspiration from Gert van Wilders, who, as a poster here noted, has to take armed guards with him when he uses the bathroom in his own parliament building, or from Mohammad Sarwar in Britain, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Hirsi Ali makes a pretty compelling case why this is a war on Islam, or better stated, Islam's War against the west, in a 6 part series on you tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aItcLm_0nc
I agree with leaveiraqnow. Someone needs to speak loud and clear who is at war with us. Until that happens, we will not win because we wont indentify the enemy. It doesnt matter right now if they win. The message needs to get out so it can be debated. If the candidate comes out and lays it all out with the facts backing him, the only recourse for the other side will be name calling. Let the facts speak for themselves. More important, get the facts out on the debate floor.
Guiliani may seem to "get it" now, but once in office the old "this is so much more complicated" syndrome will set in. Seems most politicos or their appointees "get it" either before or after serving in office. It's the time in between where they seem to "forget it".
Does it mean he is against an independent Kosovo too?
Evidence of intelligent life on earth.
I agree with Giuliani's article and I hope he gets elected. Better him than Obama or Hillary.
There's only so much Giuliani can say right now. He has to get his point across without giving certain organizations an excuse to call him a racist, etc., and without enabling the media, and his political opponents, to distract from the essential point of his message.
"Giuliani renamed the US 'war on terror' as 'the Terrorists' War on US'..."
Rudy has been the best of the bunch in terms of understanding the jihad and standing against it. And he has been doing this for a long time. He threw Arafat our of a concert at Lincoln center because he was a criminal and jihadist and he rejected the offer of money from Alaweed bin Talal after 9/11 that came with the suggestion that the US reassess it's Middle East policy. It is true that Rudy is a little soft on immigration but he is reacting properly to the public rejeection of the amnesty bill.
Since neither Robert Spencer or Daniel Pipes is running for president, I am for Rudy. If anyone else has an opinion on the subject, I think it is on topic and I would like to hear from them here.
So I guess we are treating the West Bank and Gaza as the equivalent of Indian reservations?
Giuliani throwin Arafish out of a concert..piqued the curiosity..from Frontpage..
When Rudy Booted Arafat
By Jason Maoz
JewishPress.com | 10/28/2005
Ten years ago this week, the UN was marking its fiftieth anniversary with a series of events around New York City, including an Oct. 23 invitation-only Lincoln Center concert performed by the New York Philharmonic for a glittering list of dignitaries and diplomats. When Rudy Giuliani spotted Yasser Arafat and his entourage making their way to a private box seat near the stage that evening, the mayor immediately ordered the Palestinian leader off the premises.
The man in the street cheered the mayor’s gutsy move, but the city’s liberal elite was appalled. "The proper role of New York, as the UN’s home city," sniffed The New York Times, "is to play gracious host to all of the 140 or so world leaders present for the organization’s gala 50th birthday celebrations."
A spokesman for the Clinton administration, which had done so much to build up Arafat’s reputation as a statesman, termed Giuliani’s action "an embarrassment to everyone associated with diplomacy."
Former mayors David Dinkins and Ed Koch held a joint press conference to denounce Giuliani. "Mayor Giuliani has behavioral problems dealing with other people," Koch told reporters.
Two days after the concert an unrepentant Giuliani said, "I would not invite Yasser Arafat to anything, anywhere, anytime, anyplace. I don’t forget."
Elric66:
With Olmert in charge, does it really matter?
It may not last. Netanyahu has won the leadership of Likud. He will certainly be tougher than Olmert once in power.
I hope you are right UK Infidel Lover. When will Olmert be thrown out? He still has a few years left I believe. Israel cant wait that long.
Seamus posted:
"So I guess we are treating the West Bank and Gaza as the equivalent of Indian reservations?"
There is no equivalence. The Native Americans did not START the war they lost.
If they had started it, it would be ridiculous for them to demand back the land they could have kept if they hadn't have started a war in the first place.
It is likely to be Rudy versus Hillary for president.
Rudy kicked Arafart out of Lincoln Center, while Hillary was hugging and kissing Suha.
Rudy rejected Saudi money while the Clintons were on the dole to the UAE.
Picked up my copy of Religion of Peace? today. Will get to it as soon as I finish The Force of Reason.
Here's to another NYT Best Seller, Mr. Spencer!
"Rudy rejected Saudi money while the Clintons were on the dole to the UAE."
Posted by: Papa Bear
Point well taken, Papa Bear. Bubba has had his pockets bulging with Arab money. From March, 2006 ...
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/2/121350.shtml?s=ic
Thursday, March 2, 2006 12:10 p.m. EST
Dubai's 'Boycott Israel' Sheik Funded Bill Clinton
Former President Bill Clinton has accepted at least $1.6 million from the United Arab Emirates, including $300,000 from a Dubai sheik who adamantly backs the country's controversial boycott of Israel.
On Jan. 17, 2002, Mr. Clinton was paid $300,000 to address the Science, Technology and Arts Royal Summit in Dubai at the invitation of Crown Prince and U.A.E. Defense Minister Sheik Mohammad bin Rashid Al Maktoum
Less than three months later, Sheik Mohammad urged the United Nations to approve the use of force against Israel to halt what he called the Jewish state's "butchery" of Palestinians, according to London's Financial Times.
Mr. Clinton's benefactor called for then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to "stand trial before the International War Crimes Tribunal," where Sheik Mohammad said he would "have a prominent place in the list of world's killers, terrorists and criminals."
The Dubai sheik then reminded that "Arabs have a wide room for political, diplomatic and economic moves and have the right, at least, to revive the Arab economic boycott to Israel."
Mr. Clinton accepted another $300,000 from the Dubai regime for a speech in 2005. And his presidential library in Little Rock has collected seven-figure sums from several Arab governments participating in the anti-Israel boycott, including Dubai.
In September 2005, the New York Sun reported:
"When the library opened last year, a computer display in the exhibit halls included information on some, but not all, donors. The Saudi Royal Family and the governments of Dubai, Kuwait, and Qatar all gave $1 million or more."
The paper noted that after it published a previous list including Mr. Clinton's Arab donors, "the computer display was shut off. It has not been restored."
On Thursday morning, NewsMax called the offices of Mr. Clinton, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Charles Schumer, Rep. Peter King and the Anti-Defamation League in New York, inquiring about the appropriateness of Mr. Clinton taking so much cash from a country that boycotts Israel.
None of the calls had been returned by press time.
Freedomschool
The Indians were not a unified people, and some of them did start the various wars that they lost.
I'm tired of this politically corrected up version of history that divides the world between "the evil white man" and everybody else.
The schools in this country have to stop teaching students that we are always the bad guys.
Hugh
Isn't it up to the Israelies to decide what to do with thier land? How could Giuliani stop Olmert from giving away territory?
The Israelis had their chance in 1967.
And went for the moderate route.
Against an immoderate deathcult.
Preferably Tancredo, but Guiliani in a realpolitik pinch.
Would consider voting for Guiliani if he hadn't been such a blatant racist in his pre-9/11 days. (and I'm not talking about Islam--it's not a race). As it is, I'll probably spend voting day sitting in my apartment enjoying an "adult beverage" or two.
Either he recognizes the truth or he is pandering to Jewish voters in NYC. I hope it's the former.
Reply to Seamus:
Obviously, you've bought into the boldface Arab/Lefist lie that Israel is "colonialist" and the "Palestinians" are an indiginous people. No, the Jews are indiginous to that land -- the last time there was an independent, non-colonial state on the West Bank, it was a Jewish state with a capital in Jerusalem -- the arechaelogical sites are Jewish archaeological sites -- the Jewish people have had the longest, continual history in Jerusalem, Hebrew was spoken in Jerusalem long before Arabic, Jesus was a Jew, not a Palestinian as the wretched terrorist Arafat used to purport, and Solomon's temple certainly wasn't a mosque, as Hamas claims, etc. etc. The ancestors of many if not most Palestinians arrived there at the same time as the European Jewish re-settlers of the land of Israel. I'm not saying the Palestinians have no rights or are not entitled to a just, peaceful settlement, but that these lies must be put to rest once and for all.
Dear Paleologos
That is great information for the General election. People forget the Clinton Money machine and sleze. I think your info would make some great negative adds this time next year.
Giuliani won't be getting a Christmas Card from Jimmy the Dhimmi this year.
All bets are off. Just look at multiculti Newark NJ when an illegal alien who was convicted of childrape (among other things) and was OUT ON BAIL killed three kids for their $90. total turnabout on THAT issue, 'save Newark', a furious mayor etc. 'this is insane'. Suddenly people GET it.
A catastrophic Islamic terror attack of 9/11 or greater levels in the U.S. and all the politics will be unrecognizable.
Good on yer, Rudy! Hope this policy extends to Kosovo, Kashmir-anywhere a viper's nest of Islamists is being set up under noses of 'Liberal' Western Politicians chomping at Saudi Petro Dollar Trough. Hopefully, ordinary Americans will SEE the Clinton connection-once this lovely couple were almost broke but are now worth $25 million bucks [at least] & most would be aware that Bush dynasty is also founded and funded from same source-Sharia State of Saudia Arabia,most secretative & undemocratic in the world...
"I think your info would make some great negative adds this time next year."
Posted by: Ruebacca
Dear Ruebacca,
I wish that were so, but MSM will continue to muzzle this story just as they sat on this one regarding President Clinton's failure to take out Bin Laden when he was offered up to him on a silver platter by Sudan:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/10/181819.shtml?s=ic
MSM does not seem to be interested in following where the Arab money is going into the U.S. WE are much too trusting of the Arabs, and this is true of Bush too, you will remember his awful idea of turning over the running of our ports to a United Arab Emirates company, the "Dubai Ports" fiasco.
USA Patriot,
I agree with you that there must be a peaceful settlement, and that Palestinians must abandon the path of Hamas before a true peace is possible. But you can not ignore the Israeli obligations as well, which is what I think this poster was saying.
The fact is that both Jews AND Arabs are indigenous to the Holy Land. As you pointed out, Jews once had a great kingdom in the Land of Israel, they are currently on the land, and they continue to have emotional ties to the land. At the same time, you can not deny the pain of Palestnians over their Nakhba. 59 years ago, thousands of Palestinians learned--in some cases at gunpoint--that they would not be able to return to the land that they and their ancestors had called home. This was truly a tragedy. No one should have to go through that.
Likewise, no one should have to live their lives under an Occupation that prevents them from charting their own destiny. Whether we are talking about ancient Israelites under Roman Occupation or West Bank Palestinians under Israeli Occupation, no one should have to go through that, either. It is expected, and often justified, that people in such a situation take steps to regain control of their destinies. That's what I think the poster was saying.
Also, since I am new to this site, let me commend the host for alerting us to the danger of Islamic fundamentalism. I've heard plenty of people say it's all Israel's fault, and it's all the imperialsts' fault, and that terrorism is justified in response to opression. They're wrong. Protests are justified in response to opression, and since you're a Patriot, I'm sure you'de have approved of Washington's and Jefferson's protests agains taxation without representation. But on the other hand, I think we both agree: terrorism is never justified.
Ryan Jones, you said:
If his tenure as mayor of New York City is any guide, don't expect business as usual from Giuliani. He is one pugnacious bulldog, and brilliant. A man of action and intellect. Check out Fred Siegel's Prince of the City: Giuliani, New York and the Genius of American Life..
I like his current foreign policy essay in Foreign Affairs. He doesn't name Islam itself as the enemy -- but he's been going around meeting people around the country and speaking of "Islamic" terror -- not "Islamist terror," not "radical Islam," but "Islamic" terror. He does use the "Islamist" term sometimes, but simply in being willing to say "Islamic" so often, he's out in front. He has a way of cutting through so much BS -- for example the way he treated Arafat -- like the criminal Arafat was, when so many useful idiots and political correctoids were admiring the naked terrorist's invisible garments.
Apologies to Democrats for this rant on behalf of Giuliani.
Shlomo_Michael, your compassion is admirable, and surely justified to some extent, but maybe you are too generous to the Islamic side. The Palestinians could have had a state eons ago if they had only had a single compromising bone in their culture. But Islam is a totaliarian culture in many respects, and extremely inimical to compromise. It's often "my way or the highway," from the top down. That brittleness can be very notable even when Muslims are dealing only with other Muslims, but if compromise must be worked out with non-Muslims, then the brittleness is truly tending toward the extreme.
Have you read The Case for Israel, by Alan Dershowitz?
Anyway, Israel is under constant threat and attack from its Arab neighbors not because of anything Israel has done, but for the same reasons that we see Muslim aggression in Thailand, the Philippines, Somalia, Sudan, the U.K., and so on and so on. It's the same reason that Muslim-majority countries, according to human rights groups, are the most backward in the world in terms of civil liberties and political rights. Even the most liberal "exceptions" -- Indonesia and Turkey -- are no picnic for non-Muslims. The problem is that Islam fosters a dictatorial, illiberal culture that inevitably comes into conflict with anything that refuses to be absorbed.
Giuliani was not a blatant, or any other kind of racist. He just pissed off a lot of people, black and white, because he wouldn't pander to the status quo of hugely corrupt, bloated city government and he refused to play the game. Calling him "racist" was a refuge of those who had lost the argument about how big the government would be, how friendly to business it would be, how unfriendly to entitlements it would be, how unfriendly to crime it would be. When some people find they have no answer to an argument, they strike out and name-call rather than honorably accept a momentary defeat. That's what some people did with Giuliani, name-call, because he's a tough customer to beat fairly.
"When some people find they have no answer to an argument, they strike out and name-call rather than honorably accept a momentary defeat. That's what some people did with Giuliani, name-call, because he's a tough customer to beat fairly."
Many African-American residents of New York City would disagree with that.
Also, I agree with Shlomo_Michael in that both the Israelis and the Palestinians have suffered in this conflict. That said, the Palestinians have shot themselves in the foot time and again by pandering to extremism. I do feel a lot of sympathy for their plight, and it is undeniable that many of them were indeed forced to leave their homes at gunpoint, and this should be addressed in any future settlement, but with every terrorism act and with every horror story of a woman being set on fire for "shaming the family," that sympathy is diminishing. Israel, for all its faults (unlike most people here, I don't worship them with wide-eyed zeal), holds on to basic humanitarian and democratic principles--something the Palestinians have never done.
A poster above, one carefully-named "Shlomo_Michael," who admits "I am new to this site," trots out all the usual stuff about the "Palestinians" and their supposed "tragedy," and furthermore tells us briskly that "59 years ago, thousands of Palestinians learned--in some cases at gunpoint--that they would not be able to return to the land that they and their ancestors had called home."
59 years ago, five Arab states tried to snuff out the life of the nascent state of Israel. At the time close to a million Jews lived all over the Middle East, in countries ruled by Islam and Arabs. The local Arabs had not yet, pace "Shlomo_Michael," been carefully renamed as "Palestinians." And contrary to his dreamy belief, the notion that these local Arabs had always been there, tilling the soil, since time immemorial ("they and their ancestors had called home" etc.), many of the Arabs had arrived during the period of the Mandate, simply coming in droves, uncounted and unchecked by the British, from Egypt, and Iraq, and elsewhere -- determined to take advantage of the only economic boomlet in the area, one that was entirely the result of the Jewish in-migration. The inattention to demographic and cadastral records, by those who make breezy pronouncements about "the Palestinians" (and who never seem even to think it necessary to discuss what, in Muslim terms, the idea of a "nation-state" may mean, or why the term "Palestinian people" was never used by any Arabs prior to their defeat in the Six-Day War), is extraordinary. The inattention to the nearly one million Jews of the Arab world, the inattention to the historical record that can be found, summarized, in such books as "Battleground" or at greater length in such works as "The Myth of Dispossession," the failure to put anything into a larger context, the failure to examine the considerations that led to the establishment, along with several other Mandates, of the Mandate for Palestine, continiues to amaze.
One question for "Shlomo_Michael" remains. Why does he think all of us, including the Arabs, have no trouble referring to "Arabs and Kurds" as the two main groups in Iraq, or to "Arabs and Berbers" in Algeria and Morocco, but for some reason -- can he figure out the reason? -- when it comes to tiny Israel, we have all been taught to carefully say "Israelis and Palestinians" instead of, far more accurately, "Jews and Arabs." And can he tell us why he thinks the war or against Israel was so carefully redefined to emphasize this "Palestinian people" and a factitious history, including those "ancestors" that he invokjes.
And then perhaps he may see -- unless he is not a naif capable of learning, but rather something more sinister -- that what Israel faces is, unsurprisingly, not a dispute over borders, that can be resolved by further Israeli concessions and surrenders, but rather a classic Jihad, one where the local Arabs -- those "Palestinians" -- are merely the shock troops of what is supported by Muslim Arabs everywhere and by those non-Arab Muslims who feel the tug of Islam more strongly than they may any anti-Arab sentiment (that anti-Arab sentiment, so obvious among so many Turks and Persians, for example, is also likely to be found mostly among those non-Arab Muslims who are of a secularist bent -- Kemalists in Turkey, members of the ancien regime of the Shah in Iran, the kind of people who name their children Cyrus or Darius rather than Mahmoud.
No, what Israel faces is a Lesser Jihad. All the instruments -- qitaal or combat, diplomatic and economic pressure, demographic conquest from within -- are to be used, depending on efficacy. The difference between Fatah and Hamas is merely one between the Slow Jihadists, who want the tap of Western Jizyah-aid turned on and kept on, and the Fast Jihadists of Hamas, who quarrel over the spoils of power, and when it comes to Israel, differ only in tactics and timing, but not in ultimate, and clearly-expressed among themselves -- goals.
One more thing for "Shlomo_Michael." Google "Darura" and "Jihad Watch." Read about the only conceivable way to preserve an enduring peace between Infidel Israel and the Muslim Arabs. Hint: it is not through any kind of treaty, or peace-processing. It is the oldest trick in the geopolitical book: Deterrence. If the Arab leaders are not to be forced by their howling populations into war, even when they know they will lose (see May and June 1967), they must be able to point to an unpleasant (for them) fact: that Israel is ovrwhelmingly more powerful, and Israel must be seen to be overwhelmingly more powerful. Any retreat from the current lines would make Israel much more vulnerable, and what's more, it would -- to any Arabs looking at a map -- seem even more absurdly easy to overrun, cutting the country in two, say, at Qalqilya (eight miles from the Mediterranean), or having a mass uprising of the Arabs within, or both at the same time, that no one could resist going in for the kill.
One wonders if Israeli leaders, or members of the public, intend -- just as one wonders if Western leaders in Europe and North America intend -- to learn about Islam, or whether they will continue to make life-and-death policies based on an ignorance, wilful it would appear, of Islam? It is not hard to find out about the contents of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. It is not hard to find out what Muslim commentators have written over the past, say, thousand years. It is not hard to read what Western scholars, in the uniinhibited period 1960-1960, wrote about the history of Jihad-conquest and subsequent subjugation of non-Muslims. It is not hard to find out what defectors from Islam, such people as Wafa Sultan, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Ibn Warraq, and Ali Sina, dare to tell us, dare to testify. It is not hard to find out what "treaty-making" with Infidels means to Muslims -- not hard, that is, to find out about the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya or how it is regarded as the model for all agreements between Believers and Infidels (see Majid Khadduri). So why don't you do that? Why don't you start, say, with "The Legacy of Jihad" and with Majid Khadduri's book on "War and Peace in Classical Islam" and find out about these things? And why not find out about "Darura" by a little googling, and not be quite so quick with a ready tear for the "Palestinians" and their supposed "plight."
Hugh-
Ask Michael_Schlomo if all of the Christians and Jews dispossessed from medieval Saudi Arabia have the "right of return"? Or those who once lived in North Africa? Or Turkey? Or the Jews, post 1948, who were driven from Atab/Muslim lands? Or do the Hindus expelled from (formerly India) Pakistan have the right to return to their stolen ancestral lands lost to the Jihad? Or the Buddhists of Afghanistan? (Bamiyan wasn't full of Buddhas for no reason.)
Michael_Schlomo-
The "Palestinians" left the area in 1948 expecting to return as victors once their attacking Arab brothers had crushed the nascent state of Israel.
They lost their land in their bid to exterminate the Jews after the U.N. approved partition.
That gives them the right to be wrong.
Nothing more.
1. The Palestinian People
Hugh, I am interested in seeing that demographic data, but ultimately I think it is a moot point. The fact is that since 1967, the individuals living in the Gaza strip and the West Bank (and scattered across Lebanon) have lived together and have shared a common fate. They will not be assimilated into Egypt or Jordan, two dictatorial governments that fear the destabilizing effects of an influx of refugees. Nor will they be assimilated into Lebanon--Palestinian refugees have faced myriad human rights abuses since the Nahr al-Bered crisis began, and the Lebanese have similar worries about undermining a fragile balance. This means that the only land Palestinians can call home lies in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Just as the inhabitants osf the Indian subcontinent were largely seperated until the British united them as the "Indian people", due to sixty years of Occupation, as of the past 40-60 years we can now speak definitively of a "Palestinian people".
2. "Fast" vs. "Slow" Jihad in Israel/Filasteen
Furthermore, it is natural that the Palestinian nation would seek revenge aganst their Israeli Occupiers. I think this is the basis for the Right of Return, but I strongly disagree with it. Palestinians live in Gaza and the West Bank now, so that is where their state should be. To establish a Palestinian-style One-State Solution would be a bloodbath, as Hamas calls for "cleansing" Zionists from the Holy Land. This is what some here call a "fast" Jihad, as opposed to the "slow" Jihad of Fatah. But ultimately, I do not think these labels fit the situation, because they fail to distinguish between Islamists and Arabists.
What you call "fast" vs. "slow" Jihad is really the difference between Arabism and Islamism. Virtually all Palestinians despise Israel, but Fatah advocates are more Arabistic/nationalistic, and Hamas advocates are Islamists. Fatah is actually terrified of the Jihadism of Hamas, just as Egyptian Arabists are terrified of the Moslem Brotherhood. Incidentally, Fatah is not a partner for peace, but this is mainly because the party is falling apart, and Abbas has no credibility among ordinary Palestinians.
3. The nature of Islam and Terrorism
First of all, Islam is not inherently violent and intolerance. In the Classical Medieval period, when Europe was mired in the “Dark Ages”, Islamic Civilization was the most advanced and tolerant civilization in world history. Second, and this is to traeh, the current violence in Sudan and Somalia have very little to do with Islam. The Darfur genocide is Moslem-on-Moslem violence, and is about Omar Bashir’s ruthlessness more than Arabism or Islamism. Also, everyone in Somalia is Moslem. Everyone. It so happens that Somalia has faced a vicious civil war the past fifteen years, but so has Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Congo. Just because the guy holding a gun happens to be Moslem does not make him a Jihadi. If you think the Turkish Islamists are no picnic, you should see the secularists. They are actually far more militaristic and dictatorial than the Islamists. If the secularists had won, there might have been Turkish troops storming through Kurdistan right now. Would you rather have Turkish-style Islamism or Hamas-style Islamism be the dominant strain? That’s all you need to know. Also, GetBornAgain, very few in the “Third World” generally get their human rights honored, especially freedom from want. Besides Sudan, human rights abusers also include Ethiopia, our ally in the War on Terror with a strong Christian tradition. The Christian Ethiopian government is in the process of starving out its ethnic Somali, Moslem minority…
No, the Jews are indiginous to that land -- the last time there was an independent, non-colonial state on the West Bank, it was a Jewish state with a capital in Jerusalem -- the arechaelogical sites are Jewish archaeological sites -- the Jewish people have had the longest, continual history in Jerusalem, Hebrew was spoken in Jerusalem long before Arabic, Jesus was a Jew, not a Palestinian as the wretched terrorist Arafat used to purport, and Solomon's temple certainly wasn't a mosque, as Hamas claims, etc. etc.
If being indigenous to a land, even one that one's ancestors emigrated from centuries earlier, entitles an ethnic group to set up a state there, then I guess the American Indians *are* entitled to an independent state on the Eastern Seaboard, and the Basques certainly have a right to fight to set up their state in northeastern Spain--a land they inhabited long before the invading Roman and Visigothic ancestors of the Spanish arrived. And unlike the Jewish immigrants to Palestine, the ancestors of the Basques didn't even leave their land, so they are even *more* entitled to an independent state than the Israelis are.
There already is a "Palestinian" state. It's called JORDAN (where, incidentally, Jews are not permitted to live). If you have any doubt about Israel's rights to its territory, read "A Case for Israel" by Alan Dershowitz. A reasonable person should be thoroughly satisfied with his arguments, even if they are still angry at him for helping to get OJ off.
Seamus-
The native Americans have many of their own nations within America. See: Navajo, Hopi, etc.
The Basques would eventually get a separate state if they pursued it without terror. (People resist you the more you behave brutally, because they assume that you will be setting up a brutal state.)
Michael_Schlomo-
The myth of tolerant medieval Islam is disproved by Islam's underlying dogmas. The conquered infidels were serfs, not citizens.
You need to get out more.
Read "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance" for a start.
The Irish did more to preserve Civilization in the (not really) "Dark Ages" than Islam. ("How the Irish Saved Civilization" would be a good follow-up for the previous volume noted.)
Islam cherry-picked ancient texts for ammunition, not enlightenment. As Islam's development demonstrates.
Hugh Fitzgerald: Thank you.
profitsbeard wrote: "The Irish did more to preserve Civilization in the (not really) 'Dark Ages' than Islam. ('How the Irish Saved Civilization' would be a good follow-up for the previous volume noted.)"
I've got that book; it is very interesting.
The native Americans have many of their own nations within America. See: Navajo, Hopi, etc.
I wasn't aware they were independent states. Or perhaps you're proposing something like the minority plan that emerged from the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine in 1947. That plan (supported by India, Iran, and Yugoslavia), called for a federal Palestine comprising an Arab state and a Jewish state, each of which would be internally self-governing and would have authority over education, inter-state migration, settlement, police, punishment of crime, social institutions and services, public housing, public health, local roads, agriculture, and local industries.
The Basques would eventually get a separate state if they pursued it without terror.
But by your reasoning, which says that an ethnic group has the right to establish a state on land they used to inhabit, even hundreds of years ago, they shouldn't *have* to wait until they "eventually get a separate state"; they should have the same right to establish an independent state immediately, by force of arms, as Israel did in 1946-49. What's more, in doing so, they should have the right to engage in terrorist acts comparable to the assassination of Count Bernadotte, the bombing of the King David Hotel, the hanging of Sgts. Clifford Martin and Mervyn Paice, the massacre of Deir Yassin, etc.
(Actually, they should have a *greater* right to do so, since they have been living continuously in their land for centuries, and didn't need to return in a kind of Basque aliyah.)
And BTW, the Basques aren't any more likely to get their own state given them by the Spaniards, even if they live as peaceably as Quakers, than the Bretons are likely to get their own state from the French or the Hawaiians from the Americans.
Shlomo_Michael, you said:
It's not absolutely violent and intolerant. But there is substantial evidence that it is the most intolerant, totalitarian and violent "great religion" on the face of the earth, by far.You misread history. Medieval Islamic "tolerance" today would be considered about as tolerant as Jim Crow laws were in the U.S. for blacks. See Bat Ye'or's Islam and Dhimmitude, or Andrew Bostom's The Legacy of Jihad and the Fate of Non-Muslims. Perhaps you have been overly influenced by Edward Said's Orientalism or its numerous tendentious ideological progeny.
Also consider the following:
That quote can be found here.
You also fail to note that Christian misbehavior of the Middle Ages cannot be justified by the New Testament. Even the violence in the old testament is violence that is described, not violence that is prescribed. Among "great religions", only Islam contains, in its core texts, an open-ended call for violence and subjugation of all unbelievers ongoingly into the future. Islamic violence and a totalitarian ethos can easily be supported by Qur'an, Sira, and Hadith. And the advanced Islamic civilization you speak of in the medieval period was advanced in large part because of Christian and Jewish translators, and because the peoples the Muslims conquered were themselves already far more advanced than the Bedouin Muslims that streamed out of Arabia. Over a period of centuries, as Islamic rule became sufficiently rooted and dominant in the conquered countries and had impacted the ethos of every individual sufficiently, "Islamic" creativity largely died out. And that's how it's been ever since, more or less.
One of the posters above makes reference to the dark ages and medieval era, conflating the two epochs. This commonly made mistake is frequently used to contrast "primitive" Europe with the "advanced" caliphate.
The European Dark Ages refers to the time in which the Western Roman Empire was moribund or recently defunct, a period social political instability characterized by barbarian raids of various kinds and preceding the era of stability known as feudalism. The expression "Dark Ages" was coined in the Middle Ages by the 14th century historian Petrarch. The retreat of the Dark Ages started when European chietains, such as Charles Martel and Charlemagne, filled the power vacuum. It was their kind that saw the threat of the invading Saracens for what it was, turned them back at Tours and began the long process of pushing them out of Europe. Make no mistake, these were rough violent men, but they knew who they were and what Europe was. And it wasn't to be easy-pickings for the marauding Arabs.
The rise of feudalism in Europe saw the return of law and order and was the era known as the Middle Ages. The Middle Ages saw the establishment of the Kingdom of Outremer, a belated response to the depredations of the Moslems generally and the Seljuk Turks in particular. The Middle Ages saw the building of graceful cathedrals, an innovative, graceful and moving architectural form unknown anywhere in the Moslem world. The Middle Ages saw the likes of Thomas Aquinas, who worked to find the consistencies between faith, as handed down in Christian scriptures, and reason, as handed down by classical Greek philosophy. The European Middle Ages happened in spite of the presence of Islam, leading to the Renaissance and the modern world. By contrast, the islamic world has never had a renaissance of this kind. We are only given to understand that there was a Golden Age, coinciding with the peak of Moslem conquests and characterized by tolerance and learning, as declared by the conquerors. As has been pointed out many times before here on this web site and elsewhere, it is the conquerors who tend to write the histories.
However that may be, if we are to believe that a golden age ever existed in Moslem lands, there is nothing stopping the citizens of those countries from revitalizing such cultures based upon tolerance and pursuit of knowledge. Saudi Arabia, for instance, would be a good place to start. Why not show the world how an Islamic Golden Age looks like using Saudi Arabia as a pilot program? It has huge capital resources, it never suffered the indignity of European colonization, it would appear to have an interest in promoting this kind of ideal, so let's see it. Saudi Arabia: show the world an Islamic Golden Age! And let us know when it's up and running just in case we don't recognize it right away.
I am rather curious, and more than a bit appalled, by some of the replies to Shlomo_Michael's calm, respecful opinion. Hugh's response was extremely sardonic and insulting in tone. Is this indicative of the maturity level of most people who post here? Surely it's possible to disagree ("I believe your assertions are false, and here's why:...") without resorting to demeaning personal insults and a condescending tone. I am assume we are all adults here. Frankly, this reflects poorly on Hugh and the others who failed to disagree respectfully. "You need to get out more"--is this truly necessary?
Just asking.
I am rather curious, and more than a bit appalled, by some of the replies to Shlomo_Michael's calm, respecful opinion. Hugh's response was extremely sardonic and insulting in tone. Is this indicative of the maturity level of most people who post here? Surely it's possible to disagree ("I believe your assertions are false, and here's why:...") without resorting to demeaning personal insults and a condescending tone. I am assume we are all adults here. Frankly, this reflects poorly on Hugh and the others who failed to disagree respectfully. "You need to get out more"--is this truly necessary?
Just asking.
(sorry about the multiple posting. Computer trouble.)
GetBornAgain, I don't see what sardonic and insulting comment(s) made by Hugh to which you are referencing.
If you would point out specific lines and identify your reasons for viewing them as negative, that would be helpful.
But I'm curious as to why you find Hugh's academic or direct responses as 'sardonic'? Are you really seeing this, of is it just because you agree with Shlomo_Michael?
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with taking comments personally when tone cannot be applied to text. It's understandable when someone replies to you.
But I have to admit to wondering why you are taking this as if the comments were directed at you personally, when I'm gathering many others here just view these comments as part of the process.
I appreciate your reply.
So I guess we are treating the West Bank and Gaza as the equivalent of Indian reservations?
Posted by: Seamus
What is THAT supposed to mean? First of all.. WE don't run Israel. Second of all.. I have two words regarding what should be done:
M.A.S.S. E.X.P.U.L.S.I.O.N.S.
GetBornAgain -- Hugh Fitzgerald picked up on something that I wrote once and he wrote something that challenged my statement. (I don't remember the topic and it was fairly minor.)
I didn't take offense at his criticism or his tone.
I would hope that Schlomo_Michael would take the challenge and read the references that Hugh took the time to give him (and us).
At least Hugh called him by his "name"; he just called me something like "a poster above" when he criticized my comment. ; )
I view Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald as professors and most of the rest of us as their students.
Also, I think it would be helpful to note specifically that Hugh did not write, "You need to get out more".
Phl413, could you find me a good link that will summarize “a case for Israel”, or summarize for me the key points that are revelant? ProfitsBeard, I would appreciate the same from you about “The Myth of Islamic Tolerance.” These one-liner comments are quick and easy, but I don’t really learn much from them. Please, elaborate.
On to Chatillon and Traeh, who have actually made substantive comments. Chatillon, you are correct about my mistakenly confusing the Dark Ages with Medieval times. I’m beginning to forget my world history studies. But I think you’re going a bit far with your praise of Martel and Charlemagne in the “pre-Classical” period. They were warriors; the Arabs were warriors. Everyone wanted to conquer as much territory as possible, and no one wanted to be “easy pickings” for the other guy. But I wish you would elaborate on vague phraseology like “it was their kind who saw the threat of the invading Saracens for what it was.” How was the threat “their kind” posed any different than the Saracens’ threat to them (“what it was”)?
Then we move on to the Middle Ages, in which both Christiandom and Islamic civilization reached new complexity. However, along with this came substantial intolerance in both cultures. Traeh is correct that Medieval Islamic tolerance fails the modern human rights test. But he neglects to point out how much more intolerant Christandom was at that time. Mark Cohen (NOT Sayid!), illustrates this nicely in his book “Under Crescent and Cross”, which describes how Jews lived under both peoples. Since Jews have been the punching bag of Islam and Christianity for most of their histories, I figure we can judge both civilizations by how they treated their lowest-status.
Cohen found that in general, there were in fact Jim Crow-type anti-Dhimmi laws, but these laws had to be continually reissued, suggesting enforcement was lax. Jews could hold government office (even though it was “technically” illegal), had near-equal economic opportunity (except for Jizya), and were generally guaranteed their physical safety under the Pact of Umar. Contrast this to Christianity. In the VERY early Middle Ages (e.g. Charlemagne, Lois the Pious), Jewish traders were in high demand and Jews were treated well. But their status gradually diminished, until they were expelled from virtually every European nation sometime in the High Middle Ages. This is history through the eyes of the victims, not “as declared by the conquerors”. If I were a Jew living 800 years ago instead of today, I definitely would have preferred to be a dhimmi.
Hello, anybody home?!
Now, I will be honest: I was referred to this site by a friend who was an avid reader, and when I presented to him the argument I just made, he told me to post here and see what people say.
Silence.
Was Classical Medeival Islamic civilization tolerant or not? If it was, then the entire premise of this site is incorrect. Regardless of what is written in the Quran, there is precedent for a peaceful Islamic civilization. Tolerance is compatable with Islam, and the current trend of violent Jiahd is not due to the religion, but other factors. If I am correct, we need to identify and address these other factors to steal the Jihadis' thunder--and we must act NOW, because millions of lives are at stake.
Shlomo_Michael --
I do not intend any of this in a sarcastic way, so I hope it doesn't come across that way.
1. It is likely that your questions have already been addressed on this site. Please spend some time familiarizing yourself with the search function here, do some research and see what you come up with.
2. Hugh Fitzgerald (one of the learned people who runs this site) has already spent considerable time addressing you in two lengthy comments.
I can't speak for anyone else but I, personally, am waiting for you to do the reading he suggested and to address each and every one of his points. If you don't do that, I personally don't see why anyone else should engage further with you.
The comments section is a "social gathering" of sorts and newcomers need to show that they are operating in good faith and not just showing up to spout pro-Islamic rhetoric or to be argumentative.
3. Perhaps you are new to commenting on websites such as this one, so I will inform you, from one poster to another, that it is considered bad form to show up and make statements such as, "...then the entire premise of this site is incorrect..." and to issue challenges based on insufficient knowledge of this site's teachings, the administrators' credentials and the folks who comment here.
You write that, "Tolerance is compatable with Islam", and that tells me that you have not spent time studying the articles on this site in which the Koran and other Islamic texts have been examined, in depth. If you had, you would know that this idea has been addressed many times.
If you have not seen it, may I recommend another good learning tool: Robert Spencer's "Blogging the Koran" at Hot Air.
This is the link to the introductory post, with links to the series posts:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/26/hot-air-introduces-blogging-the-quran/
Hi Schlomo_Michael.A few comments on your comments.
In your posting you state "But I think you’re going a bit far with your praise of Martel and Charlemagne... " I would redirect your attention back to what appears earlier in my posting: "Make no mistake, these were rough violent men... " My praise for these men would thus seem to be qualified somewhat. Notwithstanding, it is indeed the warrior character of both Charlemagne and Martel that should be noted. You raise question concerning what threat "their kind" may in turn have posed, as compared to the Saracens --"their kind" meaning to say individuals who recognize an invasion when one is happening. Clearly the threat that they posed was to the invading Moslem hordes and no apologies for the rough handling the invaders received at their hands.
However rough and violent and imperfect the Christianity of Charlemagne and his grandfather Charles Martel, the template their faith was based upon allowed their shortcomings to be understood and rectified by later generations. In fact it speaks volumes that the faith that they handed down to their heirs fostered a society in which inquiry into the nature of human faith and reason survived and then was actively embraced. Charlemagne was a rough and violent character, having some similarities to Mohammed in fact, but differing in very important ways. For instance, Charlemagne attempted to become literate. Charlemagne's interest in education and learning was such that he instituted monastic schools throughout his realm, accelerating the revitalization of civilization. And Charlemagne recognized, no matter how reluctantly or controversially, the separation of Church and State when he permitted himself to be coronated by Pope Leo III.
What has this got to do with Guiliani's warnings concerning a Palestinian state? More than one might think at first blush. Moslem territorial demands are total and non-negotiable, in the France of Charles Martel's era, the Spain of Charlemagne's time and the Israel of today. We all recall how Osama bin Laden has made clear his intentions for "al-Andalus" --Spain, so it should come as no surprise that certain elements in the Moslem community see fit to foment perpetual unrest between Israel and the Palestinians. As a result some people are perplexed at the continual Moslem expression of victimhood and loss, in "al-Andalus," the Philippines, in Thailand and most prominently in Israel. These people may come to ask questions, such as
"Why, given the innumerable peace agreements brokered between Israel and its Arab neighbors, has not peace ever taken hold? Is it truly because the Israelis are so perversely duplicious? If they are, then why is it that there are in fact Arab Moslem citizens of Israel, fully incorporated into Israeli life and participating as equals in Israeli political life?"
Or
"What promises or threats were levied against the Palestinian refugees by their fellow Arabs and correligionists that make them and their descendants perceived as security risks to the Israelis? Given the deplorable state of affairs in the Palestinian refugee camps, why doesn't Saudi Arabia make more of its vast resources available to improving the condition of their correligionists in those camps? Or given that the present-day Palestinians may have familial ties to Jordan, Syria and Egypt dating to the time of the British Mandate, why can these people not be repatriated to the countries of origin if their loyalty to the state of Israel cannot be credibly established."
The truth seems to be that peace in the Middle East has always been within reach, provided both parties were bargaining in good faith. Mr. Guiliani is expressing his scepticism that such good faith exists on the Palestinian side of the equation. The historical record supports his opinion.
"Was Classical Medeival Islamic civilization tolerant or not? If it was, then the entire premise of this site is incorrect." --from above
This syllogism is a non sequitur.
Classical Medieval Islamic civilization's putative tolerance may have existed, albeit within the strictures of the dhimmi status for Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians (deathand conversion for all other non-Moslems). Most non-Moslems view the dhimmi status as a type of apartheid or Jim Crow. That is to say, individuals were tolerated as underlings, not as equals. An unasked question is whether this "tolerance" could ever develop into something more readily recognizable to the modern world as true tolerance. I have my doubts, insomuch as such an evolution would run counter to the canonical Islamic texts: the Qur'an, hadith and biography of Mohammed. But even this observation is irrelevant to the issue as it is posed here: "If Classical Medieval Islamic civilization was tolerant, then the premise for this site is incorrect." This syllogism is simply wrong. The premise of this site is based upon what certain elements of the Moslem community are making out of their canonical texts, in a very direct cause-and-effect manner.
For instance, poverty and ignorance are frequently touted as being the real cause underlying Islamic unrest, rather than the underlying canonical Islamic texts. However, lest we forget, al-Qaeda's 9/11 outrages were perpetrated by educated and financially secure individuals, mainly Saudis. Bin Laden and al Zawahiri also come from privileged, educated backgrounds. Bin Laden quoted chapter and verse from Islamic sources when justifying and declaring his jihad against the US, a jihad initially declared due to the presence of "infidel" troops with the borders of Saudi Arabia. So the "poverty and ignorance" argument accounting for Islamic unrest appears to me to be a canard.
So far as the example of tolerance as seen in Classical Medieval Islamic civilization is concerned, there is nothing stopping Saudi Arabia, with its vast wealth, from reviving this tradtion within its own borders, right now. They have it within their power to show the world what tolerant Islam looks like. Non-Moslems are heartily interested in seeing what tolerant Islam looks like.
Hello everyone, thank you all for continuing to engage me on this. As is true for you, my top priority truly is the end of terror and Jihadism. Although much that is said on this site runs contrary to my initial instincts, I am willing to accept difficult truths given the current stakes. Just for the record, you can call me Shlomo from now on. That is not a "carefully-chosen" name as certain individuals have implied, but the name I have answered to since birth. (The "Michael" part is because just "Shlomo" was taken.)
To Josephine,, who writes:
"You write that, "Tolerance is compatable with Islam", and that tells me that you have not spent time studying the articles on this site in which the Koran and other Islamic texts have been examined, in depth. If you had, you would know that this idea has been addressed many times."
In fact, I have been searching the site. The main thesis seems to be that since Quranic texts promulgate Jihad, Islamists will never compromise. To be very precise, (so you don't say I'm dodging it), let me spell it out with formal logic.
SYLLOGISM A
Major Premise: All societies based on religion adhere closely to their Holy Texts
Minor Premise: Islamic civilization/Islamism is a societal model based on religion.
Conclusion: Islamic civilization/Islamism adhere closely to their Holy texts.
Once we accept the conclusions of this syllogism, THEN and ONLY THEN can we say:
SYLLOGISM B
Major Premise: If a religion is violent, societies based on that religion will also be violent
Minor Premise: Islam is a violent religion
Conclusion: Islamic society is necessarily violent.
All of the sources that I have been referred to have been, in some form, textual studies of the Quran. They have all done a fine job of proving Syllogism B. Point taken. The problem is that I have yet to find one that addresses Syllogism A, on which Syllogism B is implicitly based.
Could anyone prove Syllogism A to me? If so, then we're on to something! But I am initially skeptical of Syllogism A, based on the fact that anti-dhimmi decrees were repeatedly ignored in the Classical Medeival Period. Anyone who could comment, I would be very grateful.
Josephine, I am not being argumentative, I would just like to hear your perspective. If anyone could address this issue, it would be the fine folks on this blog.
Hello everyone, thank you all for continuing to engage me on this. As is true for you, my top priority truly is the end of terror and Jihadism. Although much that is said on this site runs contrary to my initial instincts, I am willing to accept difficult truths given the current stakes. Just for the record, you can call me Shlomo from now on. That is not a "carefully-chosen" name as certain individuals have implied, but the name I have answered to since birth. (The "Michael" part is because just "Shlomo" was taken.)
To Josephine,, who writes:
"You write that, "Tolerance is compatable with Islam", and that tells me that you have not spent time studying the articles on this site in which the Koran and other Islamic texts have been examined, in depth. If you had, you would know that this idea has been addressed many times."
In fact, I have been searching the site. The main thesis seems to be that since Quranic texts promulgate Jihad, Islamists will never compromise. To be very precise, (so you don't say I'm dodging it), let me spell it out with formal logic.
SYLLOGISM A
Major Premise: All societies based on religion adhere closely to their Holy Texts
Minor Premise: Islamic civilization/Islamism is a societal model based on religion.
Conclusion: Islamic civilization/Islamism adhere closely to their Holy texts.
Once we accept the conclusions of this syllogism, THEN and ONLY THEN can we say:
SYLLOGISM B
Major Premise: If a religion is violent, societies based on that religion will also be violent
Minor Premise: Islam is a violent religion
Conclusion: Islamic society is necessarily violent.
All of the sources that I have been referred to have been, in some form, textual studies of the Quran. They have all done a fine job of proving Syllogism B. Point taken. The problem is that I have yet to find one that addresses Syllogism A, on which Syllogism B is implicitly based.
Could anyone prove Syllogism A to me? If so, then we're on to something! But I am initially skeptical of Syllogism A, based on the fact that anti-dhimmi decrees were repeatedly ignored in the Classical Medeival Period. Anyone who could comment, I would be very grateful.
Josephine, I am not being argumentative, I would just like to hear your perspective. If anyone could address this issue, it would be the fine folks on this blog.
Hello everyone, thank you all for continuing to engage me on this. As is true for you, my top priority truly is the end of terror and Jihadism. Although much that is said on this site runs contrary to my initial instincts, I am willing to accept difficult truths given the current stakes. Just for the record, you can call me Shlomo from now on. That is not a "carefully-chosen" name as certain individuals have implied, but the name I have answered to since birth. (The "Michael" part is because just "Shlomo" was taken.)
To Josephine,, who writes:
"You write that, "Tolerance is compatable with Islam", and that tells me that you have not spent time studying the articles on this site in which the Koran and other Islamic texts have been examined, in depth. If you had, you would know that this idea has been addressed many times."
In fact, I have been searching the site. The main thesis seems to be that since Quranic texts promulgate Jihad, Islamists will never compromise. To be very precise, (so you don't say I'm dodging it), let me spell it out with formal logic.
SYLLOGISM A
Major Premise: All societies based on religion adhere closely to their Holy Texts
Minor Premise: Islamic civilization/Islamism is a societal model based on religion.
Conclusion: Islamic civilization/Islamism adhere closely to their Holy texts.
Once we accept the conclusions of this syllogism, THEN and ONLY THEN can we say:
SYLLOGISM B
Major Premise: If a religion is violent, societies based on that religion will also be violent
Minor Premise: Islam is a violent religion
Conclusion: Islamic society is necessarily violent.
All of the sources that I have been referred to have been, in some form, textual studies of the Quran. They have all done a fine job of proving Syllogism B. Point taken. The problem is that I have yet to find one that addresses Syllogism A, on which Syllogism B is implicitly based.
Could anyone prove Syllogism A to me? If so, then we're on to something! But I am initially skeptical of Syllogism A, based on the fact that anti-dhimmi decrees were repeatedly ignored in the Classical Medeival Period. Anyone who could comment, I would be very grateful.
Josephine, I am not being argumentative, I would just like to hear your perspective. If anyone could address this issue, it would be the fine folks on this blog.
Sorry about the triple posting...
I hope I have proven to Chatillon why the syllogism is actually highly relevant to this discussion.
He does make an interesting point with Saudi Arabia: why have the Saudis remained poor and intolerant, and not created a model Islamic society? Well, it's partly because they're stupid, and have used their oil on conspicuous consumption instead of parlaying it towards sustainable development. It's also because Wahhabis are among the most radical sect in Islam. Yes, they're intolerant.
Let me emphasize again, I do not contend that Islamic civilization today is tolerant. It is not, as the past twenty years of terrorism make clear. I only question whether Islamic civilization necessarily must be this way...which goes back to my syllogism...
Another good point is Chatillon's "unasked question" about whether Classical Islamic tolerance can translate into tolerance by modern standards. This is a fascinating question. Right now, there are more tolerant Islamists in Turkey and Pakistan, and more radical ones in Lebanon and Gaza. Let's see who wins, but don't count the moderates out. If Christian civilization, which was more intolerant in Medeival times, could "grow up" to respect human rights, why not Islam as well?
To shlomo-michael
In both Turkey and Pakistan, right NOW, Christians have been cruelly persecuted, tortured and murdered.
Many who have apostasised from Islam to Christianity in Pakistan have suffered martyrdom or fled the country.
I don't see much evidence of 'tolerance' there.
Malaysia and Indonesia used to be thought of as 'tolerant' Muslim societies. They are becoming less so by the minute. While the Indonesian army turned a blind eye - or even surreptitiously assisted - thousands of Christian villages in the Moluccas were slaughtered by the Laskar Jihad during the 1990s, and Melanesian Christians in Papua are being grossly abused and harassed right now. Look up the Lina Joy case, for Malaysia.
Iran of course is a mess - look at the precarious fix of the Jews there. The remnant Jews of Yemen are under huge pressure.
And as for the much-fabled Muslim tolerance of past ages - go look up the letter that Maimonides wrote to the Jewish community in Yemen.
Islamised societies had plenty of pogroms against Jews, from Mohammed's lifetime onward - how come there's a traditional rallying cry, It-bah al Yahood! Kill the Jews!? They just got less publicity than the ones inside 'Christendom'. Shortly before the First Crusade, Muslim envy against a Jew who had become a highly-placed official bore fruit in the mass killing of the Jews of Granada - all four thousand of them - in 1066.
Ibn Warraq writes, in "Genesis of a Myth": "Those apologists who continue to perpetuate the myth of Islamic tolerance should contemplate the massacre and extermination of the Zoroastrians in Iran; the million Armenians in Turkey; the Buddhists and Hindus in India; THE MORE THAN SIX THOUSAND JEWS IN FEZ, MOROCCO, IN 1033; HUNDREDS OF JEWS killed in Cordoba between 1010 and 1013, the Jews in Marrakesh in 1232; the Jews of Tetuan, Morocco, in 1790; the Jews of Baghdad in 1828; AND SO ON AD NAUSEAM".
And I give you, also, the words of James Parkes, a thoroughly learned man who knew a great deal about the history of European Jewry and Jewry in general, and was one of the first to sound the alarm about Hitler's extermination plan. From his book on the history of 'Palestine', 'Whose Land?', he writes:
"Fanaticism is the natural concomitant of ignorance and arrogance, and it is unfortunate that Christians and Jews, in the hope of securing better treatment for their fellows under Muslim rulers, by the flattery of the Muslim authorities, should have created out of Koranic tolerance of the Peoples of the Book [Parkes here is overstating, to put it mildly! I have read the Quran and seen what that 'tolerance' consists in!], THE LEGEND OF THE FAVOURABLE TREATMENT OF CHRISTIANS AND JEWS. It might indeed be said of the Turkish authorities, that they exhibited the toleration of indifference, when suitably paid to do so. But apart from this, THE LEGEND OF GOOD TREATMENT OF JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN MINORITIES HAS NO SUPPORT IN THE MUSLIM HISTORY OF THE LAST 1000 YEARS, apart from the brief period of the early Osmanli sultans".
That is: Classic Islamic 'Tolerance' is much overrated.
Small typo in the above: it should be 'Christian villagers', not 'Christian villages'.
To "Shlomo_Michael" --
Here are many articles on the myths of Islamic tolerance, and on more specific matters, such as the myth about the wonders of Andalucia. See, for example, by googling, articles by Andrew Bostom, and also google "Jihad Watch" and "Maria Rosa Menocal." As for Mark Cohen's Crescent and Cross book, I would compare that with Bat Ye'or's books (The Dhimmi, Islam and Dhimmitude, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam), with the scholarship of Georges Vajda and Evariste Levi-Provencal on Jews under Islam, and with the material collected in the just-about-to-be-published book on Jews in Islam by Andrew Bostom.
I don't think you will be quite so satisfied with Cohen's work afte that. I know what Bat Ye'or thinks of his book, and also about remarks he has made which indicate that he is one of those who thinks that if we don't offend Muslims, and keep telling them how wonderful they and their high Islamic civilization was, and do not dwell too deeply on what Jihad-conquest and the imposition of the status of dhimmi really meant, then somehow things will be solved. The idea is this: we just can't tell the truth, the whole truth. It is too painful. Better to tell people untruths that will somehow make them wish to behave accordingly.
This isn't history. This is the game of Let's Pretend. It's betting our future on lying about Islam, its texts, tenets, attitudes, atmospherics. I don't think it will work. I think anything that prevents Infidels from understanding the essence of Islam, and how it began, and what happened to the non-Muslims whose lands were conquered by Islam, and what is not merely likely but will almost certainly happen if, not through military conquest but through campaigns of Da'wa and demographic conquest (both aided by the Money Weapon), much or all of Western Europe, and then other parts of the Infidel world, are conquered and the sure, steady, inevitable civilizational decline sets in -- as it did, after a certain period, when the non-Muslim population was reduced, in every land that Islam conquered.
I'm really impressed by the level of discussion on this site.
The question whether to tell THEM the truth or to feed something (like a "psy-op" stuff) was also crossing my mind. It's interesting that this school of thought is gaining popularity lately (including some very highly placed military advisers). And yes, I agree with Prof. Fitzgerald that the ideas of this sort are just a folly, a product of confused (and historically not very educated) mind.
Though I can understand those Pentagon analysts who are quite confused and demorilized by the hardships of the Iraq war. Yes, it is difficult to admit such challenge which pitches you against 1.2bln hostile, not limited by any moral restrictions (and demographically superior!) population...
Thanks all for the sources, I'll check them out! If I have any more questions after that, I shall return...