| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Many learned analysts continue to insist that if the U.S. would only modify its policies regarding Israel, the global jihad would end. Here, Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald places the ongoing jihad against Israel in its larger context:
The Arab war against Israel is a classic Jihad. It can be called the Lesser Jihad, and began before the advent of OPEC oil money, and the mass migration of Muslims behind Infidel (enemy) lines. It began because Israel is in the midst of the dar al-Islam and is an Infidel state run by the heretofore despised Jews -- a particularly intolerable affront.But the Lesser Jihad against Israel is merely a subset of the Greater Jihad against non-Muslims in general; it is not, as appeasers of the Throw-Israel-to-the-Wolves variety argue, a substitute for it. The larger Infidel world is now subject to what can no longer be hidden: the classic Jihad to spread Islam until it covers the globe, and Islam and Muslims everywhere dominate. To many non-Muslims, this seems to be a fantastic dream. But it is not. Do the demographic math. In Holland, thirty years ago, there were 15,000 Muslims. Today, there are one million -- and the country is a much more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous place as a result, and the Dutch do not know what to do.
In France, there are 5-7 million Muslims. Some "integrate." Some (especially Berbers) even leave Islam. But most do not. And there is always the possibility that the seemingly well-integrated may, for obscure as well as obvious reasons, and for personal as well as larger political reasons, "revert" to "immoderate" Islam. The same is true in Great Britain, Spain, Germany, and Belgium. Italy seems, for various peculiar reasons, the least likely to exhibit appeasement. Andreotti, that famous crook, was pro-Arab and anti-Israel merely out of the usual financial considerations, and not, one suspects, out of some failure to understand Islam: he was too intelligent for that, but may have suppressed his understanding because he felt the Arabs were too rich to offend, and he could not conceive that Islam was a civilizational threat -- possibly out of contempt for Islam itself.
Though very few would recognize it, the Infidels of Europe in fact owe the Israelis a debt. For it is the Israelis who, like a lightning rod, have until recently borne the brunt of Arab and Muslim hatred and attention. Only now, with the first feeble moves to constrain Islam and Muslm power in Europe (and the word "feeble" fits), are some in Europe beginning to look at the history of Jihad, to read Bat Ye'or on the treatment of non-Muslims, and to rediscover the texts (some of which have been usefully compiled and reprinted in the forthcoming Legacy of Jihad by Andrew Bostom.These texts show that Jihad is not an intermittent but a constant feature of Islam, that it is not tangential but central, and that whenever Jihad seemed to disappear as a motivating force, it was only because Muslims were in a state either of contented ignorance about the outside world (as in a village under Ottoman rule), or were too obviously lacking in the wherewithal to conduct Jihad. But neither of those conditions, which alone explain the absence of the call to Jihad, any longer obtains. Now the wherewithal exists; it is the revenues from an accident of geology. The knowledge of the non-Muslim world also exists; indeed, Muslims have been permitted by non-Muslims to move en masse behind what the Muslims at least (or most of them) can only regard as enemy lines -- without that enemy comprehending what it has done to itself.
The Lesser Jihad against Israel is simply part of the Greater Jihad against all non-Muslims. And so are those other Lesser Jihads, such as that carried on against Hindus in Pakistan, where they have been persecuted and driven out; in Bangladesh -- ditto; in the Indian-controlled parts of Kashmir; and in India itself. Muslims view these various local jihads as related. They have no hesitation in mouthing over and over again the list: Palestine, Iraq, Kashmir, Bosnia, and so on. These are the places where the Infidels are militarily superior. But there are other Jihads within countries where the Muslims have been and remain superior. Such, for example, is the campaign of murder against Christians in the Sudan; the persecution and smaller-scale massacres in Nigeria (the "Jihad" against the Ibos and other Christians led to the declaration by the latter of their independence), with the Biafran War leading to a million Ibo deaths; and the jihad in Indonesia, where the war against the Christians first in East Timor -- illegally seized by Indonesia -- and then in the Moluccas and other islands continues wherever and whenever it can.
This is exactly what Arabs and Muslism, though they see the connections, do not wish the Infidels to see. They do not want us to read what is stated in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira about Infidels and what is to be done, or what in fact was done, to them. They do not want you to read about the real (as opposed to the falsified) history of the treatment of all non-Muslims -- Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, under Muslim rule.
Western students of the origins of Islam have no difficulty showing that the belief-system is a mixture of pre-Islamic Arab pagan lore, with stories and figures appropriated, often in distorted fashion, from both Judaism and Christianity. It was the perfect vehicle for justifying Arab conquest and promoting further conquest: something that "looked familiar" to those who were richer and culturally more advanced but militarily less organized and powerful. Some of those could be convinced over time that this uncreated and eternal belief-system was the true version of their inferior, distorted religions (Judaism, Christianity). This view, combined with the steady pressure of the cruel status of the dhimmi, inevitably led over time to a falling-away from the dhimmis' original beliefs and their acceptance of Islam -- not by all, not even by most, but steadily, a little all the time. And when one combines the grim legal status of non-Muslims with the physical insecurity, the mass killings that could occur whenever a local Muslim population was whipped up (as with the massacre of all the Jews of Granada in 1066) and whenever it could be claimed that this or that non-Muslim was not complying with the rules that governed the "protected peoples," the entire non-Muslim community to which such an individual belonged could be made to pay the price.
When will a sufficient number of people in the Western world, in the press and television, and in governments, begin to fully grasp that Islam is not merely a religion but a geopolitical program for conquest?
Posted by Robert at September 29, 2005 8:20 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Great piece Hugh.
The falsifying of history is one of the great tools of totalitarianism. Change the past and you can alter the present. Alter the present and you can shape the future.
Soviet history is the prototype for large-scale historical revisionism. For example, as Stalin gradually outmaneuvered his rivals in the factional stuggles of the mid-1920s, he had his biographers embellish his civil war record as a commander in the Caucasus.
By the time he had emerged preeminent in 1928, his standards for obsequiousness had changed; the earlier embellishments were deemed insufficient, the writers punished, and new, ever more fantastic accounts of his exploits were procured.
Another fascinating example was the 1936 Soviet census. The decimation of the rural population (mostly in the Ukraine) via man-made famine (resulting from Stalin's forced collectivization program) was an embarresment to the regime. The leaders of the census effort who had done their job conscientously were imprisoned and later executed. New numbers were contrived to jive with a steadily expanding population base.
Today, we have the Left re-writing history in our schools and universities, demonizing the West and exculpating the "other."
My daughter attends a US public High School. I was reading her history book one day just out of curiosity. Came across the Crusades and the sacking of Jerusalem. It recounted all the ugly atrocities of the Crusaders in surprising detail.
Conversely, I came across the sacking of Constantinople by the Turks. Though by all historical accounts, the streets were rivers of blood, none of this was conveyed in her book. Oh, the Greeks were said to have fought valiently, but not a word was written about Muslim atrocity.
Posted by: Cornelius![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 29, 2005 9:24 AM
For any doubters re: Lesser Jihad/Greater Jihad, here it is from the mouth of the late and unlamented Yasser Arafat, as related by frontpagemag.com by David Meir-Levi on Fri. Nov. 23/05:
"On April 14, 2002, Arafat used his cell phone to call in a 90-minute speech to a PLO radio station in Lebanon, which broadcast it across the Arab world. In his speech he chastised the Arab world for not coming to his aid. Did they not realize, he adjured them, that a 'Palestinian entity'[3] would be the most effective launching pad for the great final jihad? Hamstrung and defeated, Arafat still envisioned the glorious day when he would enter Jerusalem as the conquering hero, leading his people in fire and blood to their ‘homeland’ extending from the Jordan to the sea and obliterating Israel in the process. "
A long, but fascinating article. Here's the URL for the first of five or six parts. You'll find links to the next sections at the bottom of each.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19590
Posted by: waterdragon52 at September 29, 2005 9:25 AM
This is not precisely on point, but I think it is an excellent analysis of the UN and Israel from the Jerusalem Post. I particularly liked the final quote on page 2 about the moon and green cheese:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1127874075920
Posted by: sbrst at September 29, 2005 9:44 AM
Thank goodness you are rightfully regarded as beyond the pale by most people.
You mention the reasons for anger towards Israel among Muslims without making even a pssing reference to the illegal occupation of Palestine by European settlers. You literallly do not even mention it.
Your comments about Islam would perhaps carry a little more weight if you could explain why it is that during the only period of Muslim conquest (the Muslim and then Ottoman empires) non-Muslims were alllowed to practise their religion and cultures and - at least initially - no attempt was made to convert people to Islam. The Ottman millet system was actually quite liberal by contemporary standards.
I am not a Muslim and I despise the position of modern-day Jihadists, but what you are saying is so imbalanced that I just don't think you have any credibility among normal people who value peaceful co-existence.
Posted by: Lee Bryant at September 29, 2005 10:32 AM
'illegal occupation of Palestine by European settlers.' ~ Lee Bryant
I need some clarification here. Do you mean the occupation of Judeah by the Romans, who then renamed their new provice Palestine? Or the settlements by Crusaders, Which I believe came to be known as the Levant?
Don't forget, the muslims also occupied Judeah Illegally, when they overran it in 640 AD.
It had been, is now and with any luck will continue to be, Jewish land. They've been there for over 4000 years.
Posted by: Gary at September 29, 2005 11:00 AM
Some very good historical info on the Jews in Jerusalem / Judeah / 'Palestine,' for the last 4000 years:
http://philo.ucdavis.edu/zope/home/bruce/RST23/chart.html
Posted by: Gary at September 29, 2005 11:02 AM
Slapshot by Hugh. He shoots and scores.
Posted by: dennisw at September 29, 2005 11:09 AM
Peacefull co-existance is not possible, has not been possible for over 1400 years, and I dont see any changes in Islam to allow a chance for peacefull co-existance. The picture of Peacefull co-existance that I see is Muslims living next to a cemetary.
Posted by: Sharku at September 29, 2005 11:12 AM
Israel is sort of special because what was once a Muslim land is now ruled by Jews. Spain's Reconquista is peripheral to the Meccan center of gravity while Israel is a dagger thrust into the heart (Arabia) of Islam. Israel even shares a small border stretch with the Saudis. And the Arabs within Israel are ruled by Jews, a major insult to the Arab mind that can only think of Jews as dhimmis
So the anti Israel Jihad is eternal until....
Truth is, nothing manmade is eternal and one day soon Islam will suffer such a
shock they will happily give up all Jihads.
at September 29, 2005 11:22 AM
On this and related topics, an excellent blog:
http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
It links here - don't know if Jason Pappas posts here under a different name.
The usually excellent Spectator, home of Rod Liddle, Anthony Browne and, until recently, Theodore Dalrymple, has an annoying piece in which Labour MP John Denham is quoted approvingly as saying:
"It is no exaggeration to say that Israeli policy in the occupied territories is not simply a matter of foreign policy — it is a matter for British domestic security policy too."'
Melanie Phillips hits the nail on the head, when she says,
"So what Israel does, or is perceived to do, to the Palestinian Arabs is the cause of Islamic terrorism against the British. Logic? All you need to grasp, to follow this reasoning, is that the perception of British Muslims is all that matters. If they say Israel is committing ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians or murdering their children, then that is the grievance which has to be addressed in order to quell Muslim rage and avert terrorism against, er, Britain."
Muslim rage, again. Rage is the default state for Muslims.
at September 29, 2005 11:29 AM
Lee Bryant:
Re: “Your comments about Islam would perhaps carry a little more weight if you could explain why it is that during the only period of Muslim conquest (the Muslim and then Ottoman empires) non-Muslims were alllowed to practise their religion and cultures and - at least initially - no attempt was made to convert people to Islam.”
I suggest you read the following article which best discuss the plight of Christians under Muslim domination. The article was recently published in the La Civiltà Cattolica.
“How do Christians in Muslim-majority countries live? [...] We must first highlight a seemingly rather curious fact: in all the countries of North Africa (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco), before the Muslim invasion and despite incursions by vandals, there were blossoming Christian communities that contributed to the universal Church great personalities, such as Tertullian; Saint Ciprian, bishop of Carthage, martyred in 258; Saint Augustine, bishop of Hippo; and Saint Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe. But after the Arab conquest, Christianity was absorbed by Islam to such an extent that today it has a significant presence only in Egypt, with the Coptic Orthodox and other tiny Christian minorities, which make up 7-10 percent of the Egyptian population.
The same can be said of the Middle East (Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Mesopotamia), in which there were flourishing Christian areas prior to the Islamic invasion, and where today there are only small Christian communities, with the exception of Lebanon, where Christians make up a significant part of the population.
As for present-day Turkey, this was in the first Christian centuries the land in which Christianity bore its best fruits in the areas of liturgy, theology, and monastic life. The invasion of the Seljuk Turks and the conquest of Constantinople by Mehmet II (1453) lead to the founding of the Ottoman empire and to the near destruction of Christianity in the Anatolian peninsula. Thus today in Turkey Christians number approximately 100,000, among whom are a small number of Orthodox, who live around Phanar, the see of the ecumenical patriarchate of Constantinople, who has the primacy of honor in the Orthodox world and who holds communion with eight patriarchs and many autocephalous Churches in both East and West, with approximately 180 million faithful.
In conclusion, we may state in historical terms that in all the places where Islam imposed itself by military force, which has few historical parallels for its rapidity and breadth, Christianity, which had been extraordinarily vigorous and rooted for centuries, practically disappeared or was reduced to tiny islands in an endless Islamic sea. It is not easy to explain how that could have happened. [...]
In reality, the reduction of Christianity to a small minority was not due to violent religious persecution, but to the conditions in which Christians were forced to live in the organization of the Islamic state”
http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=6985&eng=y
I also suggest you read up a bit on the works of Bat Ye’or who evaluates in great detail how Jews and Christians were forced to live under Muslim rule. BTW – regarding the Ottomans; what’s your opinion on the Janissaries and the conversion of the Hagia Sophia into a mosque (changed in this century into a museum by Attaturk).
at September 29, 2005 11:30 AM
Muslim rage, again. Rage is the default state for Muslims.
This is due to following Muhammad's example. Can we really blame these brainwashed robots? They think less, have less doubt, than Pavlov's dogs. Stimulus and response, the inciting Mullahs know this formula for murder and Jihad.
Chalk this up to the *real* first pillar of Islam. To emulate the life of the prophet
Posted by: dennisw at September 29, 2005 11:41 AM
Bryant's claims are simply outrageous. At best, his excuse would be ignorance of history. But before one pontificates as he does, one ought to do some studying.
Now, one hundred years ago, Jews in Europe were perceived as aliens, as Orientals, as not quite "white," in any case, as not true Europeans and not truly belonging to the main countries in Western Europe [Germany, France, Britain, Spain, etc.]. Today, now that few Jews are left in Europe, Bryant and others describe the Jews in Israel as aliens, as Others, transposing the Otherness of the Jews to the Middle East, seeing Jews in Israel as the Judeophobes in Europe perceived Jews 100 years ago. No doubt not everyone felt that way about Jews, but on the "not quite white" point, see for example, the novel Trilby by George DuMaurier. The philosopher Kant called the German Jews "Palestinians." Hegel saw them as Orientals, Voltaire called the Jews "a tribe of Arabs" [that was meant to be insulting, although today it might be considered flattery]. Nevertheless, Bryant calls these Jews "European settlers." Yet these Jews had left Europe and gone back to the ancient homeland of the Jews. Jews were migrating to Europe from Israel and other parts of the Islamic domain in the high Middle Ages, during the Early Muslim-Arab period of control in Israel [pre-Crusades]. Jews in Israel after the Arab conquest [640 CE] were subject to all sorts of humiliations and restrictions, plus onerous taxes, etc., etc., as were Christians living under the Islamic empires. Bryant has a very ignorant or naive notion of the conditions of the non-Muslims under Islam. Yes, they could practice their religion; in that sense they were tolerated, although their holy places were sometimes usurped. But they were held in a state of inferiority and humiliation according to Muslim law. If Bryant is not convinced, then he should read the Quran in a reliable edition, such as that of Pickthall or Nissim Dawood [Penguin publs.]. Try Chapter [Sura] 9:29. It serves as the basis for keeping non-Muslims in a state of humiliation and inferiority. Then, as far as the Ottoman millet system being "liberal by contemporary standards," this is so ignorant and bizarre that one does not know which historical events to cite. Bryant is invited to look on my blog http://ziontruth.blogspot.com where I quote from numerous historical documents and writings, including by Karl Marx who wrote of Muslim "intolerance" towards the Jews in Jerusalem.
As to Israel representing "illegal occupation," which you've heard from Arab propagandists, know that the San Remo Conference [1920] and the League of Nations [1922] juridically set up the Jewish National Home under international law.
About the half of the Jewish population now in the country are Jews whose families came from Arab and/or Islamic countries, such as Iraq, Yemen, Iran, Morocco, etc. Hardly Europeans. Those who were born in Arab/Islamic countries could tell Bryant some heartwarming stories of liberal treatment.
Now, if he doesn't like countries where settlers or their descendants predominate, look at Canada [including Quebec], New Zealand, Argentina, Uruguary, Brazil, etc. The USA was founded by settlers. How come Edward Said, didn't complain while at Columbia U. that he was the citizen of a settler state? As a matter of fact, Said's father immigrated to the USA before World War One and became a citizen. Why did he leave the Ottoman Empire [i.e., the Middle East] if the Christians there were treated so well?
Israel represents the restoration of an ancient people to its land. Bryant ought to stop listening to the infantile versions of Middle Eastern and Islamic history offered by Arab/PLO, "leftist" and Establishment sources and study real history.
at September 29, 2005 11:50 AM
You mention the reasons for anger towards Israel among Muslims without making even a pssing reference to the illegal occupation of Palestine by European settlers. You literallly do not even mention it. posted by Lee Bryant
Mr. Bryant, are you aware of the fact that almost every putative Islamic country in the world was once a superior, progressive, enlightened civilization brutally conquered by marauding muslim fanatics? Tens of millions of poor, helpless people were slaughtered by the barbaric muslims for refusing to convert to Islam. When it became apparent to the conquering barbarians that they were killing off the very people they needed to sustain them due to their backwardness and aversion to labor, they enslaved them as dhimmis for purely selfish reasons. Muslim contempt for non-muslims is intrinsic and will never abate. The Qur'an sanctions and demands their hatred for the rest of humanity.
The Jews have had a continuous presence in Palestine for 4000 years and like it or not, Jews have been around much longer than muslims. So whose land is it? The Jewish Diaspora has every right to re-settle in its indigenous territories and NOT as dhimmis under Islamic rule. Muslims believe that they are superior to the rest of us and that it is their destiny to rule the world.
Learn the truth; it will blow your mind.
Posted by: Susanp at September 29, 2005 12:17 PM
"Lee Bryant" appears to be another Mohammedan troll.
The argument of Jews being "white settlers" -a case of reverse racism, nothing else-, is rather common.
Combined with "colonialism, racism, Islamophobia, genocide, atrocities committed against muslims, 9/11 was an 'inside job'- while in the same sentence claiming the '19 magnificent martyrs achieved a great victory"- this is all very typical, but indigestible Mohammedan fare.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 29, 2005 12:34 PM
I am not a Muslim and I despise the position of modern-day Jihadists, but what you are saying is so imbalanced that I just don't think you have any credibility among normal people who value peaceful co-existence.
Posted by: Lee Bryant
Mr. Bryant, peaceful co-existence requires two sides willing to live together as equals. Read the qur'an and hadiths, see for yourself that islam will never allow "infidels" to live as equals to muslims. islam is an imperialist belief system with no room for any other way of belief.
Bukhari:V9B84N59 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.” Whoever says this will save his property and his life from me.’”
at September 29, 2005 12:36 PM
How to address muslim rage: deportation. The rage is their problem; not ours.
Let's be rid of them.
Posted by: Havoc at September 29, 2005 12:40 PM
Eliyahu et al who responded to Lee Bryant:
Doubtless Bryant accepts the Palestinianization propaganda knowing little if anything about the actual demographics of the region throughout the ages and accepts that only Muslim, and possibly Christian "Arabs" can be regarded as native. He also likely knows nothing about the signficant migration of Arabs into the region following Jewish settlement to take advantage of the benefits of a revived economy because of Jewish development.
It is hard to say how many of the refugee claimants (who were known in the 1950s as merely Arab refugees and not Palestinians) were bona fide, and, in fact driven from their homes by Jews (small percentage according to Benny Morris) and how many were landless serfs turned off the land by the Arab landowner eager to turn a profit, or left on the directions of Arab governments who told them to evacuate in advance of the war they planned to conduct. Investigations by Al Gore's father in the early 1950s found lots of fraud and other problems with the way the UN's refugee agency was counting refugees. So, yes, many of Palestinians live sorry lives now*, but that's probably not because they were driven from their homes by rapacious European Jewish colonizers as the Edward Saidists would have the world believe. (See this link for Justus Reid Weiner's debunking of Said's claim of dispossession from his "Old Jerusalem Home" by Jews: http://www.meforum.org/article/191. It's not the actual article in Commentary, but it's a nice summation)
Jews never left altogether, though many migrated before and after to the general "Arab" region and remained there, some for milenia, like the Jews of Iraq, until they were subjected to pogroms by the locals, both before and following the establishment of the State of Israel. Well before the first waves of Jews started to arrive from Eastern Europe, Jerusalem, Safed and two other urban areas were regarded as majority Jewish and as holy to the Jews (which is likely why they remained so).
In the 50 years or so leading up to statehood, European Jews largely settled land that was desolate and vacant, which they purchased, often at exhorbitant fees, displacing no one.
* It should not go unnoted that "Palestinians" living in the "occupied lands" which were not illegally occupied, but quite legally occupied after the 1967 war, rank much higher on the HDI (about 0.67) measure than Arabs in oil-rich Saudi Arabia or Iran (both at the 0.3+). And it is so primarily because petro-dollar poor Israel, despite the heavy defense spending, has a much stronger, better developed economy than any of its neighbours. And lets also not forget about the extent to which foreign aid dollars are stolen from them and Arab charity goes primarily to funding jihad, not serving the sick and needy.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at September 29, 2005 12:46 PM
Gosh, I thought "Soccer Mom" was a much better sobriquet than "Lee Bryant". Take your ignorance elsewhere, troll.
Posted by: Infidel33 at September 29, 2005 12:47 PM
Here's a little map of the region....
http://www.protestwarrior.com/new_signs.php?sign=22
at September 29, 2005 12:50 PM
"Lee Bryant" -- whom despite his denials I take to be a Muslim, or at the very least his words are those of a deep sympathizer with Islam, perhaps one of those Arab islamochristian desperate to ignore the clear evidence of the theory and practice of Islam -- pretends not to know about either the history of Islamic conquest of non-Muslim lands and subsequent subjugation of their inhabitants, but also appears to have done little investigation into the history of that little sliver carefully referred to by some, with tendentious intent, as "Palestine," a name originally employed by the Roman conquerors in order to erase any conceivable Jewish toponym (Judea, Israel, and so on) as a way to efface or weaken the obvious Jewish connection to the land. Muslims until recently did not bother with "Filastin" but in recent decades have taken the placename up with a vengeance. And they have even contrived, or invented, a new people out of some of the local Arabs (whichever local Arabs are, at the moment, the main shock troops of the Lesser Jihad), by calling them the "Palestinian people." This phrase, never heard even from any Arab or Muslim spokesman (check all the U.N. records pre-1967-- go right ahead), has been part of the propaganda armory, dependent on historicla amnesia, of which a whole lot seems to be going around these days, no doubt helped along by the "recycled petrodollars" that pay off a small army of Western hirelings of Arab interests, who repeat whatever they are asked to repeat, and further, sometimes just for the money, and sometimes for the money and out of such other convenient impulses as antisemitism, or third-worldism run amok, or anti-Americanism that sees Israel as an ally of hated America, or all of these naturally-overlapping impulses put together to make a powerful ideological stew or brew.
Possibly "Lee Bryant" does not know the history of "Palestine" under the Ottomans -- divided as ti was into two vilayets, with a separate sanjak for Jerusalem. Possibly "Lee Bryant" does not know the testimony of every single Western visitor to the area, from Volney in the late 18th century, right up through other French, English, and finally such notable American visitors as Melville and Mark Twain, not one of whom failed to report on the ruin and desolation of the area, of the "and we saw not a single soul" variety, testimony too unanimous to be denied.
And what does "Lee Bryant" think the population of those vilayets and that one sanjak was, in 1850? Jerusalem itself had 15,000 people, a plurality of them Jewish. The entire rest of the country consisted of what were essentially a handful of villages, and with Bedouin who wandered from the Sinai all the way across the area in question, all the way to what is now eastern Jordan adn northern Saudi Arabia.
And what does "Lee Bryant" make of the real, as opposed to the manufactured history, of "Palestine" -- that is, the fact that a whole series of Muslims came beginning in the 1840s, in various groups, people who are the ancestors of many, if not most of those now declared to be the "Palestinian people"? There were the soldieres of Mehmet Ali, who did not return home but stayed in the area to live. There were veterans, Berbers as well as Arabs, of the jihad of Abd el-Kader that began in the late 1830s. There were Muslims moved wholesale by the Ottoman government out of Bulgaria, when after the Bulgarian Wars the tide of Ottoman rule receded. Then, once Jews were allowed to settle in the Ottoman-ruled lands that later would become Israel, and were further allowed to buy land, chiefly from the Ottoman government, which held title t 90% of the land, or from the handful of large, and largely absentee, landlords who had obtained land from that government. According to the Revised Standard Version promoted by the Arabs, the "Palestiian people" had been busily filing their land claims properly, cadastrally, for generations -- since time immemorial. This shows such a complete ignorance of the Ottoman system, and the real demography of the area, that one begins to wonder about the intelligence of successive Israeli spokesemn, and so-called "pro-Israeli" groups that never bother to learn the most elemenary facts about what it is they are supposedly defending. Just for the hell of it, someone in the Israeli government might actually read a book or two about this -- starting with Moshe Gil's massive history of "Palestine" up through the Arab conquest, and then such books as "The Myth of Dispossession" which offer detailed evidence of the Muslims from Algeria, Egypt, and elsewhere who settled in "Palestine" in the 19th century.
In the early 20th century, attracted by the economoic activity that the Jewish immigrants stimulated, many more Arabs arrived from everywhere -- and especially from Iraq. But none of this is widely known, if known at all. Thenumbers of Arab immigrants into Mandatory Palestine was larger in the 1920s and 1930s than the number of Jews who were allowed in; this reflected the failure of successive mandatory administrations to fulfil the solemn commitments made by Great Britain to "encourage Jewish immigration" and "close Jewish settlement on the land" (kindly read the Mandate for Palestine, beginning with the Preamble, to find out what it was all about, and what the British had committed themselves to doing, and what in fact they did do -- or did not do).
Finally, there is this business of the "European settlers" -- well, not only did many of the local "Arabs" come from far away, and were Muslim rather than Arab, including the former Ottoman domains in Europe -- but more than half the Jews in Israel are descended from the Jews who never left the Middle East, but lived as chattel slaves in the Yemen (see R. S. Serjeant, who while sympathetic to Islam -- see his fury at Patricia Crone's historical studies -- and not at all sympathetic, it would appear, to Jews, nonetheless depicts the awful situation of Yemeni Jews even into the late 1940s and early 1950s, when they were rescued and flown to Israel), or were kept, often persecuted, and at times murdered, in the mellahs of North Africa, or even where, under British rule, had managed to flourish, as in Baghdad, could be overnight subject to pogroms (the "Farhud" of June 1-2, 1941 in Baghdad), to steady persecution, and to systematic dispossession, made legal, of their property. These are the people whom "Lee Bryant" describes as "European settlers." And as for the those who did come from Europe, fleeing assorted kinds of persecution, what of it? Where ultimately did their ancestors come from? Since they arrived to settle on land that had either been bought and paid over, sometimes bought and paid for several times over to various local Arabs, and often at exorbitant prices (in 1941, completely unarable, desert land in "Palestine" was bought from Arab absentee landlords at prices far higher than what was being paid at the same time for the best farmland in thew world, that in Iowa).
If ludicrous on the demography, on the land ownership, on the history, of Israel, "Lee Bryant" is even sillier on Islam. He wishes us to believe that Muslims treated non-Muslims splendidly, a credit, far superior to anything than going. This is how he puts it: "during the only [sic -- perhaps he meant to write "early"] period of Muslim conquest (the Muslim and then Ottoman empires) non-Muslims were alllowed to practise their religion and cultures and - at least initially - no attempt was made to convert people to Islam. The Ottman millet system was actually quite liberal by contemporary standards."
As to this business of non-Muslims being "allowed to practice their religion" -- that is false. All those who were not Christians or Jews faced the choice of death or forced conversion. 60-70 million Hindus were killed. The figures on Zoroastrians I do not know, but Mary Boyce, the leading historian of Zoroastrians, has certainly presented a bleak view of their treatment by Muslims, over time, and now. What about that ahl al-kitab, those supposedly favored "People of the Book," who were "allowed to practice their religion"? Well, yes, Christians and Jews were allowed to practice their religion. But what was it tha they had to do in return, in order even to survive? Has "Lee Bryant" forgotten about all the things dhimmis, the so-called "Protected Peoples," were forced to endure? Does he not know about the required payment of the jizyah, and the humiliating conditions attached to that payment, as well as the often crushing burden that it became for the poorer Christians and Jews? Does he know that the dhimmis had to weaer identifying garb, and marks on their dwellings, that they could not repair churches or synagogues, or build new ones, or ride horses, or offer testimony against Muslims, or marry Muslim women without converting, while Muslims were free to marry Jewish and Christian women? Does he not know of the extensive literature on the treatment, under the Shari'a, ofall non-Muslims? Why does he merely refer to the fact that they were "allowed to practice their religion" without offering us a list, or even a hint of an awareness of such a list, of al lthe disabilities that non-Muslims had to endure, which such scholars as Antoine Fattal have set down (in his "Le statut legal des non-musulmanes au pays d'Islam") and which Bat Ye'or has studied at pioneering length in "The Dhimmi" and "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam" and "Islam and Dhimmitude"? If "Lee Bryant" really knows nothing of this, he can read these books, or begin by going to the webste www.dhimmitude.org, which is scholarly enough for anyone.
As for this business of the wonderful millet system, even before the other shoe drops, and the second volume of articles, this one devoted entirely to the Ottomans, that will follow upon the just-publised "The Legacy of Jiahd," one can note that the Ottomans have, thanks to all sorts of efforts, possibly prompted by some Western scholars of modern Turkey who not only misread Kemalism as having permanently constrained Islam, but in their own personal and professional ties to Turks, and to Ottomanists, overlooked a good deal in that millet system which lead them to de-emphasize the problems that remained for all non-Muslims under Muslim rule -- even Ottoman Muslim rule, which was benign compared to that of the Arabs, before or since, but hardly a model of deportment.
In just the last two centuries, when presumably the Ottomans were busy implementing the Tanzimat and other reforms, so that non-Muslims would no longer suffer, there were massacres, in the Ottoman domains, by Turks, by Kurds, by Arabs, of Maronites and Assyrians and Armenians in the nineteenth century, of Armenians in the twentieth. Should these be overlooked? Ignored? What, exactly, according to -- "Lee Bryant"?
Posted by: Hugh at September 29, 2005 12:51 PM
Lee Bryant,
Please share references (reliable or otherwise) as sources for your assertions.
If you notice, Hugh Fitzgerald, and many others who write here, are kind enough to include references and sources for their statements. That is precisely why they have credibility, and you do not.
So here is an opportunity: share some references, and if the references are reliable, you might gain some credibility. Based on this thread, as it is, you have basically zero credibility.
And please realize that very little of what edward said wrote in his propaganda filled career was either honest or reliable. But if that is your source, you would gain a smidgeon of credibility for sharing it.
at September 29, 2005 1:43 PM
del and all -
your remarks to Lee Bryant will be met with answers he gains from his 'colleagues' at
www.muslimheritage.com
as he, himself has identified at the following link
Posted by: justamomof4 at September 29, 2005 4:04 PM
I remember the programme he is talking about in that link - Adam Hart-Davis'"What the Ancients Did for Us: The Islamic World"
I also remember my letters of complaint to the BBC and Radio Times, ignored as usual, alas, alack, heu heu.
Adam Hart-Davis is usually very entertaining, making science and history live for children of all ages. This series was not as good overall as the previous one, What the Romans/Tudors/Stuarts/Victorians etc did. The Islamic one particularly scraped at the bottom of the barrel claiming the usual stolen "achievements" .
at September 29, 2005 4:27 PM
Very nice work, justamomof4. You have beautifully exposed Bryant as the islamist troll we all suspected him to be.
Hugh says: When will a sufficient number of people in the Western world, in the press and television, and in governments, begin to fully grasp that Islam is not merely a religion but a geopolitical program for conquest?
My answer to that, regrettably, is when it is life and death and not a minute before. There is a delusional defense mechanism in the human mind which transmits the idea that it's going to be OK if it's far enough away.
In other words, procrastination.
We always think we can cram for the test at the last minute, or wait until the pain really hurts before going to the dentist. We all do it, but, unfortunately, the apathy of not flossing or brushing when we should gives us the false sense
of security until that pain becomes real.
Well, the islamic cavity is digging into our enamel, day by day, week by week, and all we do is keep putting off the dentist because we're scared to death of the root canal that is probably awaiting.
Now we feel those first tiny twinges of pain, a 9/11 here and a london subway there, and, still, the pain isn't deep enough for the dentist.
The problem is, if you wait to long to get these pesky cavities fixed you eventually risk not having any teeth left by the time it has reached the breaking point.
As you said, Hugh, we are still holding off waiting for that breaking point, and God help us if we let the islamic cavity fester until it's too late.
Posted by: Madzionist at September 29, 2005 4:38 PM
"Lee Bryant" did seem remarkably solicitous of poor misunderstood Islam, didn't he, or she?
Posted by: Hugh at September 29, 2005 4:48 PM
Hugh don't ever stop writing!! I hope you start your own political party (the others are corrupt) and really change things. You are a real debater! (or at least your own anti-Muslim, save the West lobby group - lobby groups are sometimes more effective than being in politics)
One thing though, Israel under Muslim rule was so desolate due to the Tree Tax. So on the surface the Muslims appeared 'tolerant' of the Jews. But by imposing a "tree tax" on the land, the trees were all chopped down by the people (Jews and non Jews). This lead to local climate change, and essentially created desert conditions (which is why the Arabs weren’t all that interested in Israel come the 1900's).
Today Israel is a different story. The Jews have brought the land back to life. Flowers are blooming were desert use to live (this is actually in the Bible). Since the Jews returned, the land is productive. In fact Israel supplies a huge slab of the flower market to Europe. Now that it is productive the Muslims want it (funny that, what is the definition of a parasite again?)
The land was desolate under Islam. Now that Islam is gone, the land, Israel, has come back to life.
And even though the "almighty" Allah has tried to remove Israel, with far more greater military odds against her, than the Germans ever faced in WW2, Allah can't remove those few Jews!
at September 29, 2005 6:31 PM
If I may add something to what has been said about Edward Said. He writes of the Arabs and Islam as if they represented the East, the Orient. The terrible irony is that the Arabs wrecked the ancient East. They submerged the cultures existing in the East before their conquest. High cultures existed in the Middle East before the Arab conquests, from Egypt to Babylonia and Persia, with Israel [called Judea in the heyday of the Roman Empire] and Syria/Phoenicia in between. Now, the Coptic language is no longer a spoken tongue, Aramaic is much reduced in the number of speakers [in fact, only 100 years ago it was much more in use than today]. Many Aramaic speakers have fled the region, even today they are fleeing Iraq.
Now, to Hugh's argument that it's not Israel. Of course, it's not. Can anyone who would dispute him explain the Armenian massacres, which started in 1915, and in which not only Turks but Kurds and Arabs [and other Muslims] took part? If anything, the Armenian massacres may have brought support to Zionism. James Malcolm [Melkonian] is said to have helped Chaim Weizmann make high level contacts in the British govt before the Balfour Declaration. This declaration was issued in 1917, two years after the massacres began.
Next, can those of the Lee Bryant ilk explain why so-called Muslim "insurgents" in Iraq are massacring fellow Muslims, many more of whom have been killed by "insurgents" than American troops have been killed? What about the massacre in Algeria of more than 130,000 Muslims by fellow Muslims since 1990? Is that all because they don't like Israel?
Why are certain Muslim Brotherhood fanatics in Egypt harassing and murdering Coptic Christians, their fellow Egyptians, indeed the purest descendants of the ancient Egyptians? Are they killing Copts because they don't like Israel?
at September 29, 2005 7:21 PM
This is a very easy case to prove.
The United States of America was attacked by the Islamic Caliphate in the 1790s. US cargo vessels bound for Italy and other destinations in the region were attacked by Islamic warrior vessels; passengers and crew aboard were attacked, killed, and/or abducted, necessitating US military wartime action at that time. The situation was immortalized in the song "From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli."
Clearly, Israel did not at that time exist as a sovereign nation. Islam had other reasons for its assault on America. Israel was not among these.
It may therefore be reasonably concluded that Islam still has other reasons for attacking the USA or anybody else for that matter. Israel makes an excellent cover story. Look at all the supposedly educated Europeans who have been deceived by it. They continue to blame Israel for the actions of Islam. Some people just never learn.
Posted by: pythagoras at September 29, 2005 9:41 PM
"incumbent Bush will get an F-, and Tancredo will get A+."
-- from a posting above
I don't think Bush deserves an F-. Possibly an Fplus or a D-. And those who oppose his policies, for the wrong reasons -- that is, not because those policies are ineffectual and in Iraq, constitute a terrible and demoralizing misallocationi of resources, and fail to exploit the situation for the good of Infidels, but rather because any American response that might earn either of those two fashionable adjectives -- "robust" or "muscular," fairly quivering with flaunted virility, is something not to be countenanced -- are even worse. And unfortunately, many Democrats seem to be among them, or at least seem intimidated into silence by those who, wihtin the Democratic Party, will brook no uninhibited and truthful discussion of Islam.
Of course, if he decides to pull out of Iraq -- my god, today General Casey alluded to troops remaining another nine years, which shows just how bonkers they are, for no candidate who does not promise to end this Iraq venture pronto can conceivably be elected in 2008 -- Republican or Democratic, and for whatever given reasons. That should be clear, even to the Bush Administration, and even to members of Congress. This farce is closing out of town, and will not open on the Great White Way. If the best-laid plans aft gang agley -- well, what do you think is the fate of the worst-laid plans? The ones that talk by General Myers today about how the United States is "tryiing to refashion a whole country, which has never been tried before. It's historic." Yes indeed -- it's "historic" all right, but not in the way the not terribly impressive General Myers seems to think, impressive as an example of hubris, of shallowness, of ignorance running amok.
Let's give him a D- for now. If he performs better on the next midterm, which comes up -- what a coincidence -- on October 15, the day of the Iraqi referendum on the Constitution, by stating on October 17 or so that American troops will begin their permanent draw-down starting just after the December elections, and that will be the end of it, and calling a halt to that absurd $595 million dollar embassy that was being built, and a halt as well to those expensive bases that the Americans would have lost virtually the day after they completed them, seized by and for others, whether Sunni, Shi'a or Kurd. Can the American officers, even those at the highest level, begin to question as they should all the premises on which the American effort in Iraq after the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime is based? Can they ask, openly, why we are there to help train not an "Iraqi" army but a Shi'a army? Or why we are not encouraging, and aiding, rather than doing everything to discourage, the Kurdish desire for independence? Or why it is thought undesirable to leave Iraq in a state of quasi-civil war, when that is possibly the most desirable conceivable outcome, if not for the Bush Administration with egg on its face, then at least for Infidels everywhere, including those who will pretend to be deeply alarmed and dismayed by such an outcome, but secretly delighted?
Posted by: Hugh at September 29, 2005 10:25 PM
And if the last troops do leave by the spring of 2006, a few Republicans will have a chance in the fall 2006 elections, and Bush's grade will be raised, if he stops explaining us to Muslims, and makes clear that it is they who have more than a little explaiining to do themselves, about what they intend to do about what is clearly contained in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. I'd even be willing to raise it to a D plus.
But at this particular School of Necessarily Very Quick Learning, any kind of D, I'm afraid, is not considered a passing grade.
Posted by: Hugh at September 29, 2005 10:28 PM
I get glassy-eyed when I read attempts to delegitimize the Palestinians as a people; it is the mirror-image of the Muslim attempt to delegitimize Israel.
Yes, Jews have an undeniable historic presence in Palestine. Yes the Jews were responsible for the "flowering" of the desert. Yes, much land passed contractually from Ottoman to Jewish hands in the 19th and early 20th century. Yes, the Arab world bears overwhelming responsibility for the conflict in the Middle-East by a) rejecting the UN partition b) attacking the nascent Jewish state c) after battlefield defeat, refusing to recognize realities on the ground (Israel's existence) d) the rabid incitement against Israel and Jews by state-controlled media...and e) waging a campaign of terrorism against Israel.
But whatever one wants to call the Muslim inhabitants currently living inside of the former British Mandate, be they "Arabs", "Palestinians", whatever...THEY EXIST, between 4 and 5 million of them. At least 3 million live in what is referred to as "disputed" or "occupied" territory (Gaza and the West Bank). Like any people on the planet, these people want to govern their own lives. They too have historic links to the land. Some refugee families in Lebanon have Ottoman-era land deeds for property inside Israel proper.
We have to reconcile ourselves to a solution to this conflict or there will be war in perpetuity (or at least until Jews become a minority in their own country sometime later in this century). Those of you opposed to any diplomatic solutions and territorial compromise have no vision beyond continued stalemate.
I acknowledge that the PA is the quintessential 'failed state' where gunmen rule the streets and the government is a kleptocracy. This is why the international community must assert itself; how can Israel make peace with a regime that cannot (or will not) honor its commitments?
But we must pursue the chance for peace. The issues may seem intractable, but human ingenuity is capable of great things, even when hamstrung by ancient hatreds and religious fanaticism.
I personally feel that 'the Right of Return' can be resolved by turning over to refugees with verifiable land deeds the vacated properties of West Bank settlers (there should be no accepting of refugees into Israel proper, not even a token amount).
Territorial compromise is a tougher nut. Israel's coastal plain is an inviting target for artillery attack from the commanding heights of what would be the vacated West Bank. I think the only real solution is a prolonged international presence on the West Bank to prevent conflict...not another impotent entity like UNIFL, but a beefy force prepared to interdict the acquisition of heavy weaponry into the new Palestinian State and violently suppress those groups trying to attack Israel with morters and rockets.
Palestinians will invariably exhibit unhappiness and impatience with their quasi-independence, but they would be forced to vent their frustrations on UN forces instead of Israel.
I'm sure I'll take heat for this post (I've locked horns with Madzionist before on another website). None of what I'm suggesting is etched in stone. I'm just throwing out ideas...trying to shake things up.
All I'm certain about is that the "Palestinians" (or whatever one prefers to call them) exist...and the circumstances of their existence - both those imposed from occupation and those that are self-inflicted - are akin to an inflamed boil on the buttocks of mankind.
It's time for a lancing.
Posted by: Cornelius at September 29, 2005 10:55 PM
Previewing your Comment
Ahhh, Cornelius. We indeed have locked horns before, and it was quite heated as I recall. That said, I intend to keep it on a calm and intellectual level this go around and would hope you will approach it in the same manner.
Now, the first thing I've noticed is that you've softened considerably on the issue of the
"Palestinian" identity of the moslems inhabiting land which Jews now occupy. This is good because now the topics we can agree upon have expanded from before.
I agree with you that these moslems do exist, that they do deserve a real and permanent home of their own, that the right of return to Israel is not an option, and that the situation as it currently exists remains completely untenable.
I disagree with you, therefore, only on the solution. I do give you credit, though, for at least offering one, as most people who complain about the conflict do so without giving a plan for resolving the problem.
That said, here's where I see fault with in the Cornelius Plan for Peace. It does not give the moslems klnown as "Palestinian" a viable and contiguous state of their own to succeed in, and simultaneously leaves the Jews more vulnerable to attacks.
In addition, the UN is not a trustworthy or effective peace keeper, and would threaten Israel's ability to retaliate effectively when the "Palestinians" launch violence against them. The UN is simply not an acceptable defender of the Jewish State.
The Palestinians will be forced to live packed into insufficient spaces for their exploding population and without resources, technological know-how, and woeful economic and political infrastructure within their borders, thus islamic chaos and anger is sure to ensue.
Simply put, the land is not big enough to support two enemy nations within such a tiny space without all hell breaking lose.
So, the MZ plan, which is really the Benny Elon Plan for Peace, would be to instead of looking at it from a "Palestinian"/Israeli issue, looking at it as a Jordanian/Israeli opportunity to move forward.
As we both agree that the term "Palestinian" isn't the relevant or important issue here, but finding refugees and their decendants an acceptable place to live that will allow for peace, the answer to all of this is to broker the new home for them in the part of the original British mandate of "Palestine" called Jordan.
After all, Jordan was the nation from whom Israel wrestled control of the West Bank in 1967, and the "Palestinians" are living in great numbers already in Jordan, so if there is a solution to this "inflamed boil" it must come in making it happen between Israel and Jordan.
Now the idea of population transfer is certainly complex, and as we saw in Gaza it can also be very, very painful. However, it can be done, and if it is coordinated jointly with Jordan, the US, and the UN, the move of the moslem refugees can be completed to the east of the Jordan river, to a land which would be spacious, welcoming and already an ally of the Jewish State, with the legitimate possibility for a real and lasting peace at long last.
This is a very real plan I propose, with both Israel and the "Palestinians" best interests in mind, and I believe in my heart it to be the only solution with a happy ending for all sides.
-MZ
at September 30, 2005 1:54 AM
Previewing your Comment
Ahhh, Cornelius. We indeed have locked horns before, and it was quite heated as I recall. That said, I intend to keep it on a calm and intellectual level this go around and would hope you will approach it in the same manner.
Now, the first thing I've noticed is that you've softened considerably on the issue of the
"Palestinian" identity of the moslems inhabiting land which Jews now occupy. This is good because now the topics we can agree upon have expanded from before.
I agree with you that these moslems do exist, that they do deserve a real and permanent home of their own, that the right of return to Israel is not an option, and that the situation as it currently exists remains completely untenable.
I disagree with you, therefore, only on the solution. I do give you credit, though, for at least offering one, as most people who complain about the conflict do so without giving a plan for resolving the problem.
That said, here's where I see fault with in the Cornelius Plan for Peace. It does not give the moslems klnown as "Palestinian" a viable and contiguous state of their own to succeed in, and simultaneously leaves the Jews more vulnerable to attacks.
In addition, the UN is not a trustworthy or effective peace keeper, and would threaten Israel's ability to retaliate effectively when the "Palestinians" launch violence against them. The UN is simply not an acceptable defender of the Jewish State.
The Palestinians will be forced to live packed into insufficient spaces for their exploding population and without resources, technological know-how, and woeful economic and political infrastructure within their borders, thus islamic chaos and anger is sure to ensue.
Simply put, the land is not big enough to support two enemy nations within such a tiny space without all hell breaking lose.
So, the MZ plan, which is really the Benny Elon Plan for Peace, would be to instead of looking at it from a "Palestinian"/Israeli issue, looking at it as a Jordanian/Israeli opportunity to move forward.
As we both agree that the term "Palestinian" isn't the relevant or important issue here, but finding refugees and their decendants an acceptable place to live that will allow for peace, the answer to all of this is to broker the new home for them in the part of the original British mandate of "Palestine" called Jordan.
After all, Jordan was the nation from whom Israel wrestled control of the West Bank in 1967, and the "Palestinians" are living in great numbers already in Jordan, so if there is a solution to this "inflamed boil" it must come in making it happen between Israel and Jordan.
Now the idea of population transfer is certainly complex, and as we saw in Gaza it can also be very, very painful. However, it can be done, and if it is coordinated jointly with Jordan, the US, and the UN, the move of the moslem refugees can be completed to the east of the Jordan river, to a land which would be spacious, welcoming and already an ally of the Jewish State, with the legitimate possibility for a real and lasting peace at long last.
This is a very real plan I propose, with both Israel and the "Palestinians" best interests in mind, and I believe in my heart it to be the only solution with a happy ending for all sides.
-MZ
at September 30, 2005 1:55 AM
Hugh: great piece (but then it mirrors yours truly opinion these last four years about who the real Arafat was - Muslim scum.
And I dont give a rats pattooty for the "palestinians" in Gazastan : 70% in camps on UN welfare.
(Those Eurowimps sure did it to themselves.)
What was given (Gaza), can be taken back; the "palestineans" (probably Syrian Arabs) should be given a roadmap directing them to the Allenby bridge into Jordan, WHERE THEY WILL HAVE TO WORK FOR A LIVING.
As for the win win nonsense, its just bulltoss. If someone wants to kill you, further discussion is morally stupid.
There's a war on. Dont dishonour our brave men and woman in talking appeasement.
Posted by: dgene at September 30, 2005 2:13 AM
justamomof4,
Thanks for the information
Cornelius,
"akin to an inflamed boil on the buttocks of mankind.
It's time for a lancing."
ouch!
Although I partially agree with your comment here, concerning stalemate if either side does not accept the current existence of the other, I think you are mistaken in your apparent equivalence of the two peoples. Its the palestinians who generally reject the possibility of peaceful coexistence with Israel, rather than vice-versa. Its the plo and hamas charters which permanently reject the existence of Israel.
The palestinians are a construction of the 20th century. In particular, their group identity was mostly built after 1967 as part of the arab-Israeli conflict, or more generally, the muslim vs non-muslim conflict. I presume you are unaware of the March 1977 Dutch newspaper Trouw interview with plo big-littlewig zahir muhsein, in which he (a plo executive committee member) stated, "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. " (I pasted that from a Joseph Farah Worldnet Daily article from July 2002).
Israel has accepted the existence of a palestinian people through the oslo accords, subsequent negotiations, and by allowing tens of thousands of plo members to arrive into gaza, and judea and samaria from tunis. It was a mistake on his part, but Rabin did it.
So what then does the world do when "distinct" new groups form and demand resources from already existing groups? This sort of general philosophical question is part of what the UN was presumably itself formed for, although the UN is not supposed to interfere in internal affairs of sovereign, member nations. But the UN has been almost an entire failure for 60 years now. It institutionalizes conflicts, rather than solves them.
Do you, Cornelius, think it would be appropriate for a newly formed identity-group, in say, California, to demand and receive the status of an independent country? If yes, under what circumstances would that be appropriate, in your opinion? You can probably guess my view of the appropriateness of such an occurrence.
Nevertheless, a more insightful view of the middle east situation, is achieved if one realizes that what drives the conflict is NOT national identity as much as the arab-supremacist ideology of islam. As muhsein points out, quoted above, the national identity tangle was created as propaganda to mislead westerners. Westerners who cannot really understand that a major "religion" could be the cause of this in modern times, and therefore look for some more acceptable reason for the conflict.
Posted by: del at September 30, 2005 2:20 AM
Del,
Zahir Muhsein is obviously a pan-Arabist and his words should be taken in that context.
I submit that Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese are derived from distinct entities. Yes they are constructs of colonialism, but so are most third world countries.
Some Syrian groups - the 'Fertile Crescent' for example - want to encompass all four entities into a 'Greater Syria' based upon ancient borders...but this is the pipe dream of lusting revanchists.
Mad Zionist,
I appreaciate the spirit of constructive debate. Your points are well made and taken:
1) Will the UN effectively prevent Palestinian attacks on Israel? Probably not. This is why the force - while being under UN auspices - might be composed of NATO and/or select Western militaries. I conceed that even this is no guarantee that the force will be effective. And their mere presence might be an impediment for Israelis to effectively respond to unprovoked attacks. On the other hand, IF the force were to prosecute their stated mission - preventing lawlessness and attacks on Israel from Palestinian territory - with gusto, it is not inconcievable that a degree of normality could be imposed on a region that has known only conflict for 57 years.
2) The absence of space and contiguity in the new Palestinian State is a very legit concern. No question that this would impair the viability of the new state, though to what extent is a matter of debate.
But the question of a "population transfer" (mass expulsion) involving 3 million people - even in the face of historical precedents in Europe after WWII - is difficult to envision. Whatever its validity, such a policy would most likely be the catalyst for another general war in the Middle East and will simply not come to pass. The international community will never agree to it...and Israel - save for a dramatic change in its internal political dynamic - will never impliment it.
So MZ, while your plan is certainly more beneficial to Israel in terms of security concerns, mine is more realistically plausible in terms of actualization. Doesn't necessarily mean that I'm right and you're wrong...just that existing psychological and physical realities in the region and the world favor my plan.
Of course things change...and one should never say never. Who knows, a year or two from now - depending upon the degree of continued Palestinian dysfunctionality, your plan may gain traction, particularly inside Israel. But again, I don't envision any circumstances where the international community would sign on to such an operation...and if Israel undertook it unilaterally, the result would be the end of American patronage, complete international isolation...and over time, probably another general war.
Anyways, thanks for your input MZ.
Posted by: Cornelius
at September 30, 2005 9:25 AM
Cornelius,
I agree with you completely that if Israel were to unilaterally transfer the "Palestinians" to Jordan it would be a grave mistake, and, in fact, probably create greater risk for general war as you indicated. It is critical, therefore, that the solutions I presented be done in conjunction with the US, the EU, the UN, the PA, and, of course, Jordan.
It is not in either Israel's or the Palestinian's best interest to force feed this plan at gun point. If peace and stability is the end goal, than it is critical to use all diplomatic means to accomplish such an enormous task.
To this end, I don't propose the "Palestine to Jordan" undertaking be enacted overnight. Rather, it should first be done strictly at summits between all parties where all hurdles are planned out and discussed until there is consensus before a single person is moved.
The fact that must be emphasized is how beneficial it will be for the Palestinian people to have the dignity and real hope for a successful future by having a home to call there own, with real borders, and no restrictions on work or home ownership like they face now in every arab country. Forget check points, forget walls and fences, forget cramped and dirty living quarters and humiliation of being in a perpetual refugee-hood.
Jordan, of course, would be greatly rewarded for being party to this. Certainly they would receive generous economic benefits and diplomatic rewards in return for their integral role in resolving the conflict, greater prestige throughout the world, most favored nation trade status, possible EU satelite membership, and receive a windfall of massive investments in infrastructure, technology, etc.
Israel, of course, would also finally have what it always has wanted: A real Jewish State of permanent and contiguous borders without the constant security threats and international pressures for concessions of land and resources. In short, real stability to become the Land that is the "Light unto all other Nations" the Jewish people have always dream of.
I know, the dreamy happy ending is very far off, but it has to start somewhere. The first step is to discuss that goal as the REAL Road Map, and have an Israeli leader with the vision and courage to begin work towards making such a destination possible.
That man is not Ariel Sharon.
Posted by: Madzionist at September 30, 2005 10:46 AM
MZ,
Your tone is reassuribgly reasonable...but your basic premise, that Palestinians can be bought into abandoning their claims to the disputed territory...I don't buy it, not for a minute.
Posted by: Cornelius at September 30, 2005 11:39 AM
Perhaps, Cornelius, it is indeed hard to conceive of the "Palestinians" accepting Israel's existence know matter how good the offer. Of course, we know a certain critical mass will never surrender their dream of throwing the Jews into the sea and establishing a moslem state in place of Israel, but that will never be allowed so the next step must be to move on.
The question, therefore, is where do we move on to? Do we set up a disjointed, cramped and insufficent division of a tiny speck of land for moslems and Jews to live permanently as mortal enemies, where disputes over territory and rights to resources goes on without resolution?
Or, do we aim higher and try for something permanent and fruitful for all. I am not naive enough to think it is just going to happen at the drop of a hat, but I believe the time is long overdo to at least begin the process for this real, lasting peace plan. It can be done.
Posted by: Madzionist at September 30, 2005 12:06 PM
Correction above: "no matter" not "know matter". Sorry.
-MZ
Posted by: Madzionist at September 30, 2005 12:10 PM
A MEMO TO CORNELIUS AND OTHERS OUT THERE WHO BELIEVE THE 'PALESTINIANS' TO BE A LEGITIMATE ETHNICITY---
The people who populate Palestine today are NOT the Philistine people of the Bible's Old Testament. They would be calling themselves Philistines if they knew that's what a resident of Palestine was PROPERLY called.
So just WHO are these Arabs who have staked a claim to Palestine?
They are in fact Muslim jihadists who have been arriving in Israel since the mid-600s to subdue the Jews and "convert" them forcibly into followers of Mahomet. The overwhelming majority of these people we see every day in the media portrayed as victims of Israeli "occupation" are made up of the descendants of past-century jhadists and more or less present-day jihadist immigrants into the "infidel" territory of the Jews. That's who the Palestinians really are! 'Holy' Warriors!
I see no especial reason to cater to these Arab people. After all, the Arabs DON'T help the 'Palestinians' except to abet attacks on Jewish folks and thereby inflict murder and mayhem upon them--as dictated per orders of Mahomet in the Qur'an. And it was the Arabs who sent these jihadists into Israel in the first place!
'Palestinian' "right of Return"? Well, why not 'return' them 'right' back to the Arab nations that originally sent them into Israel to impose Islam upon its Jewish population? Now, that would be a meaningful 'right of return.'
I feel sorry for many Palestinians. These folks didn't ask to be born into a state built to inflict "Holy War" on 'infidels' or to be betrayed by their host jihadist Arab nations. And since it IS the Arab nations that have inflicted these jihadists into Israel, it is therefore THEY who should be forced to cater to Palestinian demands.
The world has concerned itself with the rights of the 'Palestinians'. But rarely is it mentioned that Arabs are in fact "occupying" Jewish territorial lands by dint of successive invasions since the seventh century and are thus violating the sovereign rights of the Jews. Most people would be angry to read that Jews are people and have rights. Yet, they are people and do have rights.
Israel is not responsible for the so-called plight of the 'Palestinian people'. Islamic ideology is.
And if the Palestinians were as innocuous as the media has portrayed them as being, remember that it was a Palestinian, Shaikh al-Azzam, who is credited with the founding of al-Qaeda in Pakistan.
Posted by: pythagoras at September 30, 2005 1:56 PM
Pythagoras,
Does that mean you agree with my "Palestine is Jordan" peace initiative?
-MZ
Posted by: Madzionist at September 30, 2005 2:34 PM
Question to Madzionist.
You know a lot more than I do, but out of curiosity, after the Palestinian uprisings and their betrayal of Jordan who gave them refuge in the past, why would Jordan agree to letting the Palestinians setup shop there again? How could they ever trust them?
Also, will the Palestinians be content with just having some land, any land, to form their country? Don't they want what they consider to be their "historical" homeland including Jerusalem?
Looking forward to your comments.
Udarnik
Posted by: Udarnik at September 30, 2005 10:06 PM
Cornelius,
"...lusting revanchists" :) a nice turn of phrase
what do you mean by "Zahir Muhsein is obviously a pan-Arabist and his words should be taken in that context" ?
What context?
His words, given in an official capacity, demonstrate the recent construction of all of these arab sub-identities. Your position that "Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese are derived from distinct entities" is not quite so true. Reread Hugh's posts on this thread. All of these identities are 20th century constructions.
He was a plo executive committee member. Realistically, the whole plo, as well as the palestinian identity itself are constructs of pan-Arabism: proxies with which to attack Israel, after more conventional attempts failed. But the secular pan-arabism of gamal nasser has disappeared. It was more a smokescreen anyway, hiding the real pan-arab ideology, islam.
Posted by: del at October 1, 2005 1:01 AM
But the secular pan-arabism of gamal nasser has disappeared. It was more a smokescreen anyway, hiding the real pan-arab ideology, islam.
del at October 1, 2005 01:01 AM
Islam is for the whole mankind and not for Arabs alone. The Israelites are welcome to embrace Islam and become our brothers and sisters.
at October 1, 2005 9:07 AM
mohideen,
How generous of you. Thank you for sharing. But from my perspective, you are a fool. If you wish to gain some wisdom, read the following:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/testimonials.htm
Islam was developed as a personality cult of an illiterate and brutal fiend, known to history as muhammad. It became the ideology which demanded and justified arab imperialism and conquest. Although it is true that many non-arabs became or become muslims, that is but testimony to the foolishness of people such as yourself, who identify with their enemies.
May you gain wisdom before you turn to dust.
Posted by: del at October 1, 2005 5:34 PM
How generous of you. Thank you for sharing.
del at October 1, 2005 05:34 PM
I am not sharing; I am simply indicating a condition to be fulfilled to remain inside the Arabian Peninsula. Non-Muslims have no place inside the Arabian Peninsula. At least the Muslims now would let the defiant non-Muslims move to places outside the Arabian Peninsula and live.
Just wait until Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, descends. Any one who is in a place where the Prophet’s smell could be felt would die unless he is a Muslim. There would not be even an opportunity to become a Muslim and live as a Dhimmi in the presence of Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him.
Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at October 3, 2005 11:00 PM
If you wish to gain some wisdom, read the following:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/testimonials.htm
del at October 1, 2005 05:34 PM
We visited the above link, and chose to look at
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Testimonials/AishaRA50301.htm
as Ali Sina had given the name ‘Aisha’ to the lady who had left Islam. This lady claims to have read http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/Shahzad8.htm
We have looked at that so called debate where the prosecutor alone has made the statements. There is no statement from the defense.
Well, we can tell you that Ali Sina does not understand the argument he has offered against Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. If Ali Sina would include our rebuttal in the same place that he has placed his accusation, we would be – God Almighty willing – happy to show him wrong.
at October 3, 2005 11:10 PM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)