The Israeli-Palestinian issue

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The Israeli-Palestinian issue

I suppose a separate thread about this had to come up at some time here on OL. This thread was suggested in another discussion, so I am repeating a few posts from there. They are self-explanatory.

I truly hope this is not a bad idea and will not descend into a screaming match of spite.

I believe we have an opportunity here to, at least, present the different facts and viewpoints so people can go through them and decide for themselves.

Adonis--

First off, let me add my welcome here.

For clarity's sake I'm not an Objectivist, although I am a libertarian; I am also a Jew, and unlike Ayn Rand and others, I remain a practicing Jew.

Shalom Alechem then Jeffrey, it is always lovely to hear from a practicing Jew.

There is of course a good deal in common between Judaism and Islam; many Jewish concepts translate fairly squarely into Muslim concepts (Moses/Muhammed;Torah/Quran;halacha/shariah, etc.) And it seems that Allah quoted the Talmudic Rabbis when it suited Him--if you have the chance, compare the quotation you posted earlier today from the Quran, regarding the high value of human life, with a passage in the Mishnah (Sanhedrin Chapter 4), where the same thought is expressed in similar terms (in the Mishnah, based on the fact that Adam was created as the apex of creation and therefore the universe, it is thus taught that a human life is equal to the universe). The Mishnaic text would have dated no later than the last quarter of the second century CE.

Yes, there is a great deal in common between Islam and Judaism, we all come from the same root of monotheism and worship the same G-d.

Therefore when you defend certain parts of shariah, I understand where you are coming from. In Judaism, women can not initiate a divorce and can not be witnesses in a legal case; Jews litigating against other Jews in non Jewish courts is frowned upon; adulterers should be put to death, and so should men who have homosexual sex. But I suspect that Islam developed safeguards in the matter of capital crimes similar to those developed by the Rabbis: witnesses who not only see the act but also warn the criminal in advance that he is violating the Torah and might suffer the death penalty, and hear him acknowledge he had heard their warning, understood that he is courting the death penalty, and intends to continue with his action anyway. In fact, Islam went beyond Judaism in at least one detail: we require only two witnesses, compared to the four witnesses required by shariah.

That is correct, never are such punishments delivered after just one instance, the guilty party is usually warned time and time again until it has been ascertained that nothing else will swerve this person from these actions, except of course, in the case of something like rape or murder.

But being so close, Jews and Muslims are also rather far apart. The Palestinian issue is of course the most important contemporary event. There are two things that Muslims don't seem to properly understand in trying to deal with this issue:

You know Jeffrey, I really do not believe that we are far apart in terms of religion. I think the matter of Israel is, as a whole an issue not to do with religion in so much as it has to with race. As I'm sure you're aware, prior to the creation of Israel, there were no real problems between Arabs and Jews, they went to the same markets, the same doctors, babysat each others children etc.

1)that Jews don't see themselves as denying Arab claims to a place in Eretz Israel, but see Arabs as denying their own claims to live peacefully there. They perceive a majority of Palestinians in favor not of a land where Jews and Arabs live as equals, nor even in favor of a land where Jews live as second class citizens in a land dominated by Arabs, but in favor of a land where only Arabs live and Jews are only a memory. (And if the majority is not in favor of this, then they seem to have no interest in stopping the Arabs who do want such a Judenrein land.) For years they saw "moderate" Palestinians at best try to excuse, and often try to justify, suicide bombers who attacked buses and pizza parlors, and grew to suspect that "moderate" Palestinians were not much different from extremists. And they see Muslims routinely cite such things as the massacre of that Medinan tribe you discussed earlier today as the proper way to treat Jews--and don't see any Muslims with the courage to stand up and say "no!" to that. So many of them are now in the position that, since the Palestinians don't seem to want to live in peace with them, why should they try to bother to live in peace with the Palestinians.

Jews are Palestinians; we were exiled by the Romans (truly an evil empire in terms of using force to impose their will and plunder their colonies),but that does not mean we are strangers to the land (just as Palestinians who live in other parts of the world would consider it ridiculous to say they are not Palestinians). But we see the Arab side not only denying this, but trying to destroy the evidence of this (for instance, the activities of the Waqf in charge of the Dome of the Rock in the last few years, aimed at demolishing the underground chambers and other artefacts beneath the Dome which were originally part of the Second Temple.) For Israelis, it is not they who are committing genocidal acts, but the Palestinians who are seeking to commit genocide on the Jews of Israel.

Palestinians are Arabs, Jews are a Jews. The Arabs descend from The Prophet Ishmael and the Jews descend from the Prophet Isaac, peace be upon them both.

Yes both groups certainly have lived side by side in peace for the majority of history. But they are two different ethnic groups.

Yes I agree that the Roman empire (evil as you say) exiled the Jews without just cause.

Allow me to say this, I do not believe that suicide bombing is accepted in Islam. Firstly because you are taking your own life and in Islam we don't believe we have the right to do this, if we are to be blessed with martyrdom let God bless us with it, it is not something we can simply take.

Secondly, as I mentioned previously, I am totally against the harming of non combatants and Islam forbids this.

Palestinians as a whole have no problem with Jews being in Palestine and welcomed the Jews, they did and still do however have a problem with Zionism which was a secular belief promoted by non practicing Jews. But what gave Zionists a right to create a state in a land where there were already people? Their race? That is racial supremacy to believe that simply because of your race or religion, you have the right to enter a land and expel the inhabitants who'd lived there for the same amount of time that the Jews did. To say that the Zionists had more right to it than the Palestinians is racism and this is why I am completely against Zionism.

As I'll remind you, the Palestinians and Jews did live in peace together prior to Israel's creation, but the creation of the Zionist state changed that.

In 1948 the UN Partition plan was a travesty and so unjust.

It gave the Arabs 46% of the lands in Palestine, The Arabs at that time were 69% of the population and owned 92% of the land. The UN also gave the Zionists, 56% of the land when they were 31% of the population and owned less than 8% of the land.

The Zionists were also given, the most fertile and best lands in that deal. I might also add, that up until the beginning of World War 2, the 'Jews' made up but a small amount of the population in Palestine with the overwhelming majority being Arab.

I really suggest you watch the following documentary called Occupation 101 and take a look at the history of it.

http://video.google....3&client=safari

The Palestinians didn't deserve any of this.

The major problem is the Zionist settlers, they are messing any peace process up. They are trying to make the Palestinians leave and here's just one example of the treatment Palestinians go through from them.

(As a side point, you might want to check out the predicament of the Christian Palestinians who still live in the Holy Land, who are being driven out not by Israeli actions but by hostility from their Muslim fell ow Palestinians.)

Hmmm well actually, I might disagree with that, it's rare that I've seen Palestinian Muslims attacking Palestinian Christians and in fact the Palestinian resistance has been joined by Christians, George Habash, leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is just one example. I have also seen examples of Israelis attacking Christian places of worship.

If you also view that Occupation 101 documentary you'll see more of that.

Just for the record, I understand a Zionist to be a supporter of an Israeli country.

Nothing more.

I used to think Zionism was like fanatical fundamentalism until I looked it up. While there are no doubt such fanatics among Zionists, not all Zionists are. Not even the majority. In fact, from what I have read, the vast majority of Zionists are not fanatics.

To promote the idea that all Zionists are fanatics or master race believers, etc., is to make the same mistake others make when they characterize all Muslims as Islamist fundamentalists.

It is necessary to make correct identifications, otherwise nothing rational can be achieved. So long as incorrect identifications are insisted upon, the standard is the tribe, not the human mind and spirit.

I intensely dislike oversimplification and I am an outright enemy of scapegoating.

Michael

Just for the record, I understand a Zionist to be a supporter of an Israeli country.

Nothing more.

I used to think Zionism was like fanatical fundamentalism until I looked it up. While there are no doubt such fanatics among Zionists, not all Zionists are. Not even the majority. In fact, from what I have read, the vast majority of Zionists are not fanatics.

To promote the idea that all Zionists are fanatics or master race believers, etc., is to make the same mistake others make when they characterize all Muslims as Islamist fundamentalists.

It is necessary to make correct identifications, otherwise nothing rational can be achieved. So long as incorrect identifications are insisted upon, the standard is the tribe, not the human mind and spirit.

I intensely dislike oversimplification and I am an outright enemy of scapegoating.

Michael

A Definition of Zionism:

Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term "Zionism" was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum.

http://www.jewishvir...sm/zionism.html

Adonis,

I can match you tit for tat on videos. You should see the stuff that is broadcast on Palestinian TV, for instance. I can provide links if you like.

But I see little value in this.

Actually, the only value I see in a video showdown of who is the more unjust is to show that there are people on both sides of the divide who act like jerks.

Michael

Adonis,

I can match you tit for tat on videos. You should see the stuff that is broadcast on Palestinian TV, for instance. I can provide links if you like.

But I see little value in this.

Actually, the only value I see in a video showdown of who is the more unjust is to show that there are people on both sides of the divide who act like jerks.

Michael

Michael I don't like what is on Palestinian TV either.

But I think that the Occupation 101 documentary is not just a tit for tat video. If you haven't watched it then I suggest you do. It wasn't made by the Palestinians.

A Definition of Zionism:

Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term "Zionism" was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum.

http://www.jewishvir...sm/zionism.html

Adonis,

Correct. And in continuing on that same page in the Jewish Virtual Library, there is a section entitled: Zionism Is Not Racism.

The Jewish Virtual Library is one of my sources for studying Jewish matters. I am pleased to see you take recourse to it, also.

Michael

Hi Michael, I wonder if we could perhaps move the Occupation talk to another thread so not to hijack this one. I fear if this becomes a big discussion it'll detract from your original intentions.

Hi Michael, I wonder if we could perhaps move the Occupation talk to another thread so not to hijack this one. I fear if this becomes a big discussion it'll detract from your original intentions.

It is a regular occurrence here in my two (2) years

Adam

Michael I don't like what is on Palestinian TV either.

But I think that the Occupation 101 documentary is not just a tit for tat video. If you haven't watched it then I suggest you do. It wasn't made by the Palestinians.

Adonis,

I just found the link (sorry if I missed it above, these discussions are being squeezed in between other things and I end up skimming some stuff out of lack of time). Here it is (once again if I missed it, and for the first time if I did not) for those interested:

Occupation 101 (Google video)

Occupation 101 (Official site)

Occupation 101 (Wikipedia)

As this is an hour and a half, I cannot see it now. But I will over the next couple of days. I looked at the first couple of minutes and it does look interesting.

btw - One other source I have read (but not completed, I am ashamed to say since this was a gift from a person I love) is The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz. Here are some links:

The Case for Israel (Amazon)

Alan Dershowitz (Wikipedia)

Apparently it is now a documentary, but I haven't seen it yet:

The Case For Israel (official site for film)

EDIT: Since the link was open on my browser tabs, I will add it. Here is a preview on Google Books: The Case for Israel.)

Michael

Hi Michael, I wonder if we could perhaps move the Occupation talk to another thread so not to hijack this one. I fear if this becomes a big discussion it'll detract from your original intentions.

Adonis,

I agree. I will leave these posts as they are, though.

Michael

[jeffrey smith]

Adonis, in the Islam/Libertarian thread, wrote the following, in response to the question by WhYNOT whether or not he recognized the right of Israel to exist:

No. A right to exist in its current form is a right to its creation, as if there was some justification to use military force to take the lands that belonged to other people and occupy that calling it a state. It's a military occupation and not a state, just like the Crusader state initially was.

I will not recognize Israel as a legitimate state until there has been an agreement with the Palestinians on the issue, ie if Israel accepts a peace agreement like the Arab Peace Initiative which is fair and is a two state solution. That would legitimize its existence and I'd recognize it's right, from then on to exist as a state under the auspices of a peace treaty.

Adonis, I will assume that some of the sources you are exposed to on this issue are, to put it mildly, biased and inaccurate. This point is a blatant example.

Israel was not created by military force. There have been, despite Romans, Crusaders, and a load of other invaders, always Jews living in the Holy Land, however small their numbers may have been. At the very end of the 19th century CE and during the first half of the 20th century CE, these numbers increased dramatically due to the immigration by Jews from Central and Eastern Europe, many of whom were escaping persecution from Czarist and then Bolshevik regimes in Russia, and many others coming there for nationalist (meaning Zionist) reasons. The properties they settled on were purchases or rented from the legal owners. There is some argument that the lands were sold by absentee owners over the heads of the tenant farmers who actually lived on the land, but the fact remains that they were purchased through legal transactions from the owners recognized as the legal owners by the current regime--first the Ottoman Empire and then the British run Mandate. There was increasing friction and violence starting after World War I, but it must be stated very firmly that the violence was always initiated by Arabs targeting Jews. Jews may have acted in self defense, but they did not initiate the violence. The only exceptions to this were the terrorist activities of the Irgun and allied groups, and significantly they did not target Arab civilians; they targeted British military personnel. There is an interesting anecdote relating to Winston Churchill which you may find in William Manchester's biography The Last Lion, which I highly recommend for many reasons, relating to his visit to the Middle East immediately after World War I, when he was Colonial Secretary in charge of the British ruled terrorities there. He was greeted by a crowd in Gaza shouting a slogan in Arabic. Churchill at first thought they were chanting some sort of welcome for him, until TE Lawrence ("Lawrence of Arabia"), who was one of his travelling companions, translated the slogan for him. The crowd was chanting "Death to the Jews!". This was thirty years before the Israel War of Independence. There is also the famous Hebron Massacre of the late 1920s, in which local Arabs killed a number of Jews (mostly Orthodox Yeshivah students who were attracted to Hebron's religious associations) and chased out the remainder of the Jews living there--with the result that no Jew lived in Hebron from then on, until after the 1967 war. One reason the ultra Zionists who now live in Hebron are so intransigent is the memory of this pogrom.

After World War II, the British decided to withdraw from the Mandate, and the United Nations came up with its famous partition plan. It is important to remember that the Arabs involved rejected the plan, refused to accept a Jewish state, and resorted to force even before the British withdrew from Palestine, in an attempt to drive out the Jews completely, and it was Arab armies who attacked Jewish settlements when the war began.

The boundaries which were in place through 1967 were simply the armistice lines, and and they reflect nothing more fundamental than whose soldiers where in what position when the ceasefire took hold.

Similarly, with the exception of the Suez war of 1956, every outbreak of war between Israel and Arabs, including the two wars in Lebanon and the siege of Gaza, have been in response to Arab initiation of violence--either massing of armies on the borders or guerrilla rocket attacks.

So the state of Israel was not founded through the use of military force: it was founded as an already existing community organizing itself into a self governing country. Approval of neighbors or outside bodies is not necessary. A libertarian should have no trouble with that concept, I should think.

And if you object to a claim to the country based on military force--perhaps you haven't noticed, but the Arab claim to the country is based on the use of military force and military conquest by the Caliph Omar, against a country that was not attacking the Moslem community. So if you think military force vitiates a claim, then you must admit that the Arabs have no claim.

(And before you trot out the claim that the modern Palestinians are the descendants of the ancient Canaanites--they aren't. Or more precisely, the place has been invaded and settled in by so many peoples and bloodlines are so mixed that the modern Israeli and modern Arab Palestinian can both reasonably claim to have equal proportions of Canaanite ancestry, and multitudes of others since.)

I'm leaving out the matter of the Occupied Terrorities and the claims that the Israeli army drove Palestinians out of their homes, and similar issues, in the 1948-49 war because I want to focus on the undisputed matters as they reflect on the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. I don't defend everything the Israelis have done in the last 60 years, but I do feel the need to make plain that the Yishuv--the Jewish community of Eretz Yisrael--had every right to become a country of its own in 1948.

Jeffrey S.

Edited January 8, 2010 by jeffrey smith

[Barbara Branden]

Apropos of the significance of Israel to the world and of the attitude the world should take toward Israel, I cannot too strongly recommend George Gilder's new book. The Israel Test. The book is stunning in its brilliance and power. And it could not be more relevant to admirers of Ayn Rand; they will see throughout Gulder's defense of Israel Rand's view of civilization as the creation of the men of the mind, sustainable only to the extent that the creative individual, entrepreneurship, imagination, risk-taking, productivity, and freedom are valued.

Gilder's defense of Israel is an empirical one -- but it is also a passionately moral one. Read it -- and take "the Israel test."

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

I got the documentary "The Case for Israel" and just saw it. I found it to be excellent.

There were some holes in my knowledge (questions I had that a I believe many people outside the hostilities have) that are very rarely addressed. I am going to do some more reading on this and write it up in a form that I believe will be extremely useful.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Israel was not created by military force.

Ohhh so then the Zionists obtained a treaty with the Palestinians first, accepting the creation of a Zionist state based on mutually agreed borders and the Palestinians agreed to give up the majority of their lands to them?

No?

Similarly, with the exception of the Suez war of 1956, every outbreak of war between Israel and Arabs, including the two wars in Lebanon and the siege of Gaza, have been in response to Arab initiation of violence--either massing of armies on the borders or guerrilla rocket attacks.

That's not true at all. Even massing armies isn't a justifiable excuse to attack a country.

So the state of Israel was not founded through the use of military force: it was founded as an already existing community organizing itself into a self governing country. Approval of neighbors or outside bodies is not necessary. A libertarian should have no trouble with that concept, I should think.

So it's okay to go into land where there are a people and demand to make your own state from it?

I don't defend everything the Israelis have done in the last 60 years, but I do feel the need to make plain that the Yishuv--the Jewish community of Eretz Yisrael--had every right to become a country of its own in 1948.

Jeffrey S.

What right is that? Please explain what gives them that right?

[anthony]

Adonis,

I am really hoping that yours is only an error of knowledge, and not of evasion (as Objectivists would say.)

The facts have been pointed out by Jeffrey, but I will expand a little further.

The vagaries of conquest in that tiny corner of the M.E. are too many to go into, but the last major conqueror was the Ottoman empire, who backed the wrong horse in the First World War by siding with Germany.

After the war, Britain was given the job (the Mandate) of running the territory - which encapsulated all of present Jordan, present Palestine, and Israel. These last two were simply called Trans-Jordan.

Jeffrey made these two factual statements:

a. there had always been a tiny number of Jews living in that land; even under the Turks, I must add.

b. further Jews, many of them escaping the Russian pogroms moved into lands "that were purchased through legal transactions from the owners". (JS)

To digress- It has become eminently clear to most Jews that the "Zionist" label is just another manner of beating down the Jew -- without the stigma of appearing anti-Semitic.

I saw some demonstrations here in Johannesburg one year ago during the Gaza conflict (mirrored all over the world) that involved not just Muslims, but also S. African Christians, carrying anti-Zionist banners. I doubted then that any of them knew the full extent of the meaning or purpose of Zionism - and that they didn't care anyway.

They equated Zionism with 'imperialism', and 'colonisation', and that was enough for the politically correct amongst them.

This statement comes from an official web-site on Zionism : "Zionist ideology holds that the Jews are a people or nation like any other."

So what is wrong, morally, with that?

Is it so impossible to accept that the diasporic Jews would eventually get tired of depending on the benevolence of other nations? When too often they were grudgingly accepted and socially ostracised there? When restrictions of some sort were always imposed? Or, when those nations too often turned on them violently, as convenient scapegoats?

I don't think so. The only wonder is that it took them so long; also that, to begin with, they derided Herzl, Weizmann, Jabotinsky and other idealists who were trying to uproot them.

"Piss off", I imagine them saying, "why move to the desert, when we're doing so nicely here in civilised Germany?"...

As with WW1, WW2 was the next catalyst. After earlier considerations to create a Jewish homeland in Cyprus, or East Africa (!), the Brits offered a small piece of Palestine to them as the next solution,in the Balfour Declaration.

The numbers that arrived from the Nazi camps overwhelmed the British, who basically did a Pontius Pilate and denied further responsibility. (btw,my Dad in the British Palestine Police was one of them.)

That's when the newly-formed League of Nations (U.N.) took over and voted (on compassionate grounds, as well as pragmatic) for the recognition of the State of Israel in 1948. Which is when the first war began, against the Arabs who would not accept the partition plan.

Adonis, you ask "what gives them that right?"

I hope I've explained why, morally,and rationally, the Jews unilaterally struggled for that right to survive and self-rule, and LEGALLY were extended that right by the powers that be. Whatever happened next, and Israel has not always acted as ethically as its supporters would prefer, these facts of its birth must not be denied.

Tony

[jeffrey smith]

Israel was not created by military force.

Ohhh so then the Zionists obtained a treaty with the Palestinians first, accepting the creation of a Zionist state based on mutually agreed borders and the Palestinians agreed to give up the majority of their lands to them?

No?

Similarly, with the exception of the Suez war of 1956, every outbreak of war between Israel and Arabs, including the two wars in Lebanon and the siege of Gaza, have been in response to Arab initiation of violence--either massing of armies on the borders or guerrilla rocket attacks.

That's not true at all. Even massing armies isn't a justifiable excuse to attack a country.

So the state of Israel was not founded through the use of military force: it was founded as an already existing community organizing itself into a self governing country. Approval of neighbors or outside bodies is not necessary. A libertarian should have no trouble with that concept, I should think.

So it's okay to go into land where there are a people and demand to make your own state from it?

I don't defend everything the Israelis have done in the last 60 years, but I do feel the need to make plain that the Yishuv--the Jewish community of Eretz Yisrael--had every right to become a country of its own in 1948.

Jeffrey S.

What right is that? Please explain what gives them that right?

What right? Apparently you don't understand what I rather explicitly said: the Jews were there. The Jews have always been there; they were there living on property acquired through legal and peaceful means from the individuals who were the legal owners in the eyes of first the Ottoman and then the Mandatory governments. In the whole period up through 1948, no Arab lost their land because of force.

Therefore the Jews who declared themselves the state of Israel were full in the rights to be there and fully in their rights to organize themselves as a self governing country. They accepted the UN partition plan; it was the Arab side which rejected it, and which rejected the idea that Jews who were already there had the right to be there.

One side, the Jews, acted in a manner which, in a libertarian view, was proper, and one side, the Arabs, did not. One side, the Jews, came through peaceful means and one side, the Arabs, relied on force as its primary means of expression.

Until you understand that simple fact, it's not possible to talk rationally on this issue with you.

Jeffrey S.

[BaalChatzaf]

Until you understand that simple fact, it's not possible to talk rationally on this issue with you.

Jeffrey S.

Arrrggghhhhh! Smarrrrt as paint ye arrrrre!

Rational discussion is futile, particularly with people who prefer death to life.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Until you understand that simple fact, it's not possible to talk rationally on this issue with you.

Jeffrey S.

Arrrggghhhhh! Smarrrrt as paint ye arrrrre!

Rational discussion is futile, particularly with people who prefer death to life.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al:

Way to broad a brush and you and I are not that far apart in certain ways of dealing with a global jihadist movement.

Rational discussion is futile, particularly with people who prefer death to life.

Adam

[9thdoctor]

Barbara,

I got the documentary "The Case for Israel" and just saw it. I found it to be excellent.

There were some holes in my knowledge (questions I had that a I believe many people outside the hostilities have) that are very rarely addressed. I am going to do some more reading on this and write it up in a form that I believe will be extremely useful.

Michael

The Case for Israel is available on YouTube in 8 parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcHEN7o4cbo

I haven’t seen it yet, so far it looks like the case against Jimmy Carter; it’s hard to believe anyone takes him seriously on any subject.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

It's not a great documentary, but I consider it excellent because you get to see some things that are only alluded to in dark words or buried under a bunch of minutia and yelling in the mainstream. (Sort of how the global warming thing has been argued.)

Here is one (added by some further information not in the film):

Believe it or not, most people I know have no idea why the approval of the Israeli state came about establishing it where it is today, other than the Jews needed a safe haven and there are some Jewish historical-holy places around there.

But why there?

Why not, say, in South America, or some place in Europe, since the Allies gave huge portions to Russia after WWII? Surely they could have sliced off a part of territory somewhere and given it to the Jews.

From a couple of offhand comments in the film, I finally understood.

Do you know what a Grand Mufti is? I never did, except for some kind of Walt Disney image of a Muslim person of power in a turban with camels and so forth.

A Grand Mufti of Jerusalem is a leftover from the Ottoman empire. He is a Muslim cleric and the official Muslim overseer of Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem. This obviously gives him power, both real power and influence, and it has traditionally been exercised that way. During the time of the British Mandate, during the 1920's, they appointed a dude, Amin al-Husayni (or al-Husseini as it is often spelled), as the new Grand Mufti of Jerusalem when his half-brother died.

The world is usually a mess after a world war and that region was no exception after WWI. Also, dismantling an empire the size of the Ottoman empire is another mess with other issues. Hostilities are inevitable. The League of Nations had established the British Mandate after WWI to help keep a lid on hostilities until the dust settled. When the British appointed Amin al-Husayni as Grand Mufti, the idea was for him to keep a lid on hostilities on the Muslim side.

However...

That didn't work out so well...

Amin al-Husayni was a world class asshole and bigot who ended up sucking up to Hitler. He was the one who pushed that region into supporting the Nazis and spread bigotry wherever he went. He was persuasive, too. Outside of his charisma, Muslims take their holy men seriously.

Well, Hitler lost. That means his supporters lost. Here are some very obvious WWII facts:

(1) Hitler tried to eliminate the Jews,

(2) The Jews fervently wanted Jerusalem and surrounding region as an ideal place for a safe-haven country for religious-historical reasons, and

(3) Amin al-Husayni led the Muslims in that entire region (and even further) in the direction of supporting the Nazis and despising Jews.

In short, the Muslims around Jerusalem lost their moral position by being on the side of the bad guys in a world war--and losing. When you lose, you lose. Especially if your side attempts genocide.

Thus, after WWII, in 1947, the Jews were granted country status by the United Nations within demarcated boundaries inside of the British Mandate (which was being dismantled). The Arabs were given the other part, but they didn't like that situation one bit. They wanted the whole enchilada. The Jewish part shortly thereafter declared independence (one day before the British Mandate was shutting down) and the new country was called Israel.

Then all hell broke loose and it has been going on ever since.

Of course, there is a whole lot more to this, but basically, if Amin al-Husayni had not been such an asshole (and such a competent bigoted hater, at that), I believe history would have been very different.

But he and his cronies spread bigotry and spread it well. The fruits of their labors are still alive.

Also, as galling as defeat in a world war is, this was compounded by the fact that the very people the Muslim Nazi sympathizers thought would be serviced by genocide ended up taking over a portion of the lands they thought they would have been awarded by Hitler. And this was right in the middle of a bunch of Islamic holy sites to boot. (These are also Jewish holy sites, but for this mentality, that doesn't count.)

Anyway, that makes a lot more sense to me than all the double-speak and ham-handed reasoning I usually read.

If you wage war against a people (like the Muslims in the British Mandate did de facto), and try to eliminate them or support those who do, then lose, you will have to pay a price. You don't have to like it, but you do have to pay it. You even have to pay it if your side was the good guys. This is the way it has been throughout all of human history.

The ironic part is that the Jews did not fight WWII as an organized army. They, as civilians, just refused to die out from being savaged, especially by Nazi brutality. The USA and other allied forces stood up to the bullies for them and kicked some righteous ass.

But, from an outside-the-box angle, Israel actually owes a lot to Grand Mufti Amin al-Husayni. Without him and his spiteful efforts and vast influence in the local Muslim world, there might not even be an Israel. Palestine could have very easily become a single nation with cultural divisions, as happened in other parts of the world (like India) when the British withdrew.

Michael

[anonrobt]

Dennis,

It's not a great documentary, but I consider it excellent because you get to see some things that are only alluded to in dark words or buried under a bunch of minutia and yelling in the mainstream. (Sort of how the global warming thing has been argued.)

Here is one (added by some further information not in the film):

Believe it or not, most people I know have no idea why the approval of the Israeli state came about establishing it where it is today, other than the Jews needed a safe haven and there are some Jewish historical-holy places around there.

But why there?

Why not, say, in South America, or some place in Europe, since the Allies gave huge portions to Russia after WWII? Surely they could have sliced off a part of territory somewhere and given it to the Jews.

From a couple of offhand comments in the film, I finally understood.

Do you know what a Grand Mufti is? I never did, except for some kind of Walt Disney image of a Muslim person of power in a turban with camels and so forth.

A Grand Mufti of Jerusalem is a leftover from the Ottoman empire. He is a Muslim cleric and the official Muslim overseer of Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem. This obviously gives him power, both real power and influence, and it has traditionally been exercised that way. During the time of the British Mandate, during the 1920's, they appointed a dude, Amin al-Husayni (or al-Husseini as it is often spelled), as the new Grand Mufti of Jerusalem when his half-brother died.

The world is usually a mess after a world war and that region was no exception after WWI. Also, dismantling an empire the size of the Ottoman empire is another mess with other issues. Hostilities are inevitable. The League of Nations had established the British Mandate after WWI to help keep a lid on hostilities until the dust settled. When the British appointed Amin al-Husayni as Grand Mufti, the idea was for him to keep a lid on hostilities on the Muslim side.

However...

That didn't work out so well...

Amin al-Husayni was a world class asshole and bigot who ended up sucking up to Hitler. He was the one who pushed that region into supporting the Nazis and spread bigotry wherever he went. He was persuasive, too. Outside of his charisma, Muslims take their holy men seriously.

Well, Hitler lost. That means his supporters lost. Here are some very obvious WWII facts:

(1) Hitler tried to eliminate the Jews,

(2) The Jews fervently wanted Jerusalem and surrounding region as an ideal place for a safe-haven country for religious-historical reasons, and

(3) Amin al-Husayni led the Muslims in that entire region (and even further) in the direction of supporting the Nazis and despising Jews.

In short, the Muslims around Jerusalem lost their moral position by being on the side of the bad guys in a world war--and losing. When you lose, you lose. Especially if your side attempts genocide.

Thus, after WWII, in 1947, the Jews were granted country status by the United Nations within demarcated boundaries inside of the British Mandate (which was being dismantled). The Arabs were given the other part, but they didn't like that situation one bit. They wanted the whole enchilada. The Jewish part shortly thereafter declared independence (one day before the British Mandate was shutting down) and the new country was called Israel.

Then all hell broke loose and it has been going on ever since.

Of course, there is a whole lot more to this, but basically, if Amin al-Husayni had not been such an asshole (and such a competent bigoted hater, at that), I believe history would have been very different.

But he and his cronies spread bigotry and spread it well. The fruits of their labors are still alive.

Also, as galling as defeat in a world war is, this was compounded by the fact that the very people the Muslim Nazi sympathizers thought would be serviced by genocide ended up taking over a portion of the lands they thought they would have been awarded by Hitler. And this was right in the middle of a bunch of Islamic holy sites to boot. (These are also Jewish holy sites, but for this mentality, that doesn't count.)

Anyway, that makes a lot more sense to me than all the double-speak and ham-handed reasoning I usually read.

If you wage war against a people (like the Muslims in the British Mandate did de facto), and try to eliminate them or support those who do, then lose, you will have to pay a price. You don't have to like it, but you do have to pay it. You even have to pay it if your side was the good guys. This is the way it has been throughout all of human history.

The ironic part is that the Jews did not fight WWII as an organized army. They, as civilians, just refused to die out from being savaged, especially by Nazi brutality. The USA and other allied forces stood up to the bullies for them and kicked some righteous ass.

But, from an outside-the-box angle, Israel actually owes a lot to Grand Mufti Amin al-Husayni. Without him and his spiteful efforts and vast influence in the local Muslim world, there might not even be an Israel. Palestine could have very easily become a single nation with cultural divisions, as happened in other parts of the world (like India) when the British withdrew.

Michael

yes, from other readings, that indeed about sums it up...

[Robert Campbell]

Adonis,

Here, in effect, are some principles that you have invoked in favor of your contention that the present state of Israel is an illegitimate product of military conquest and seizure.

Ohhh so then the Zionists obtained a treaty with the Palestinians first, accepting the creation of a Zionist state based on mutually agreed borders and the Palestinians agreed to give up the majority of their lands to them?

No?

[…] Even massing armies isn't a justifiable excuse to attack a country.

So it's okay to go into land where there are a people and demand to make your own state from it?

[…]

What right is that? Please explain what gives them that right?

But the spread of Islam, beginning in a small way during Muhammad's own time, and continuing on a much bigger scale starting right after his death, was highly dependent on military conquest and seizure.

Without military conquest, would the Arabian Peninsula be 100% Muslim today?

Without military conquest, would Egyptians today be speaking Arabic instead of Coptic? What percentage of Egyptians would be professing Islam instead of Christianity, or some other religion?

Without military conquest, would Libyans and Tunisians today be speaking Arabic instead of Berber? Would Arabic speakers outnumber Berber speakers in Algeria and Morocco today? And what religions would prevail across Northwestern Africa today?

Without military conquest, would Palestinians and Syrians and Iraqis be speaking Arabic or Aramaic? What religions would predominate in that part of the world?

Without military conquest, would Iranians be writing Farsi, which is not a Semitic language, in Arabic characters? What percentage of them would have adopted some variety of Islam as their religion? Would the Parsees have been reduced to tiny exile communities, as they are today?

Without wave upon wave of military conquests, beginning with the invasion of Sind in 712, what percentage of the people in what are now Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh would have taken Islam to be their religion?

Weren't all of these conquests illegitimate, by your standards?

If not, why not?

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

Excellent Robert.

If I wore a hat, I would tip it!

Best I have in my icon quiver. Sorry about the claws.

Adam

looking for a talisman

[9thdoctor]

Weren't all of these conquests illegitimate, by your standards?

I think I already nailed him down on this one, he disapproves of the early Caliphates, so he’s off the hook on this. Muhammad conquered the Arabian Peninsula in his time, maybe he’ll have something to say about that. I think he’s a Shiite, I read up on the battle of Karbala he mentioned and that’s a big deal to them.

On another point, I wonder how the treatment of the Palestinians compares to the treatment the Moors received as they were being exiled from Spain in the early 1500’s.

If I wore a hat, I would tip it!

I don't have an animated one.

[jeffrey smith]

But, from an outside-the-box angle, Israel actually owes a lot to Grand Mufti Amin al-Husayni. Without him and his spiteful efforts and vast influence in the local Muslim world, there might not even be an Israel. Palestine could have very easily become a single nation with cultural divisions, as happened in other parts of the world (like India) when the British withdrew.

Michael

Arab violence against Jews started in the 1920s (possibly before, but if so only sporadic instances); al Husayni yoked himself onto an already existing trend, although hooking up with the Nazis was his own special contribution. Being hoist on one's own petard is a long tradition in the Middle East, of course, one example being Haman, who was (according to the Book of Esther) hanged on the scaffold he built for the purpose of hanging Mordecai.*

It should be noted that the Husayni (also transliterated Huseini or Husseini) clan remains important in Palestinian affairs, and at least one of the more important PLO/Palestinian Authority figures, often quoted in Western media, was a close relative of the Mufti; IIRC, that member of the clan died about two years ago. In fact, a lot of internal Palestinian politics is still based on clan rivalry.

*Side note: how many people realize that via the Book of Esther, the Babylonian gods Marduk and Ishtar made it into the Bible?

Jeffrey S.

[jeffrey smith]

On another point, I wonder how the treatment of the Palestinians compares to the treatment the Moors received as they were being exiled from Spain in the early 1500’s.

The Moors were probably treated worse. For one thing, the Palestinians were not forcibly converted to Catholicism and then threatened with the attentions of the Inquisition for a century or so; and unlike the Palestinians the Moors were eventually forced to completely leave their homeland (actually in the first decade of the 17th century--1603, I think).

The Jews who chose exile in preference to conversion in 1492 also suffered horrendously, including a large number who found themselves sold into slavery by the crews of the ships on which they had paid for passage to Italy or other countries (most of the slaves being sold into Moslem North Africa). Even those who did not experience illness, shipwreck and other misfortunes were economically ruined, since the Spanish government limited the amount of money they could take with them. And of course the ones who converted so they could stay were subjected to the Inquisition and racial prejudice for the next three centuries or so.

Jeffrey S.

[Robert Campbell]

The Grand Mufti, Amin al-Husayni, exemplified another highly destructive Palestinian tendency.

He hated Jews, and succeeded in having quite a few of them killed.

He was much more proficient at having other Palestinians killed, usually on the suspicion that they did not hate Jews quite so fervently as he did.

I believe that Palestinian militants are still killing other Palestinians at a much higher rate than they kill Israelis or members of any other groups that they blame for their current plight.

Robert Campbell

[BaalChatzaf]

*Side note: how many people realize that via the Book of Esther, the Babylonian gods Marduk and Ishtar made it into the Bible?

Jeffrey S.

Esther's (Ishtar's) name is Babylonian. Her Hebrew name is Hadassah (Myrtle). Modechai is a Hebreization of Marduch. Think of naming a Jew Christopher.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

Kill your own for not hating what you hate before you go about killing what you hate.

That's a pretty good principle of fundamentalist intent and action.

The Wahhabi-like Objectivists (like Perigo) show an unmistakable tendency to follow this principle, if not to the same degree as the Islamists...

If they ever attained enough power, though, who knows?

Michael

[Leonid]

Adonis:"I believe the matter of Zionism and Israel to be about justice and racism. I would be overwhelmed with joy if Israel were to just accept the Arab Peace Initiative which I believe is fair and just as a two state solution."

Why you think that two state solution is fair and just? Have you ever visited Israel or at least looked on the map? On what principle you justify separation of people on the ethnical or religious ground? That would be racism and apartheid. Why do you think that Jews and Arabs who,as you yourself noted, are almost identical in language, culture and religion cannot peacefully co-exist in one free and democratic state as 800000 Israeli Arabs do?

And what in your opinion is the difference between Israeli Arabs who are Israeli citizens and Palestinians who are not? As a matter of fact they are the same people in everything except citizenship. And most importantly, why do you want to submit Palestinian people to the corrupt dictatorial rule of PLO or brute Wakhabist rule of Hamas?

Edited January 10, 2010 by Leonid

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis:"I believe the matter of Zionism and Israel to be about justice and racism. I would be overwhelmed with joy if Israel were to just accept the Arab Peace Initiative which I believe is fair and just as a two state solution."

Why you think that two state solution is fair and just? Have you ever visited Israel or at least looked on the map? On what principle you justify separation of people on the ethnical or religious ground? That would be racism and apartheid. Why do you think that Jews and Arabs who,as you yourself noted, are almost identical in language, culture and religion cannot peacefully co-exist in one free and democratic state as 800000 Israeli Arabs do?

Nothing justifies separating the land based on ethnic or religious grounds. But I'm not the one who wanted it in the first place, it was the Zionists who wanted to create their state based on those lines. That is WHY it is Racism and Apartheid.

You proved my point.

And what in your opinion is the difference between Israeli Arabs who are Israeli citizens and Palestinians who are not? As a matter of fact they are the same people in everything except citizenship. And most importantly, why do you want to submit Palestinian people to the corrupt dictatorial rule of PLO or brute Wakhabist rule of Hamas?

There is no difference between them other than citizenship.

I don't want to submit the Palestinian people to the PLO. Also, Hamas isn't Wahhabi. In fact they don't like Wahhabis at all.

Let's not forget the Palestinians themselves voted Hamas in as their government.

[anthony]

Adonis :- "Let's not forget that the Palestinians themselves voted Hamas in as their government."

Which says what to you, exactly?

For me it proves that the Palestinians are adhering to belligerence as their 'solution'. How else do you read it?

Has Hamas (excuse me, the Government) shown itself to be a responsible representative of their citizens? And you are defending it?

Adonis, it's a crying shame to me that a Muslim, as reasonable and accomodating as you've shown in the other thread, reverts to the usual prejudices, on Israel.

The "Zionists" tag, is a dead give away; they happen to be Jews, and Israelis. What is the distinction, in your mind? To all intents and purposes, there is no longer a Zionist, anywhere.

Drop the slogans, and argue the facts and morality.

Israel has no designs on Palestine; if they are granted peace, they will return the favour - to the mutual benefit of all.

Israel exists; get used to it.

Tony

[BaalChatzaf]

.

Israel has no designs on Palestine; if they are granted peace, they will return the favour - to the mutual benefit of all.

Israel exists; get used to it.

Tony

They never will. The very existence of Jews is an affront to their religion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

.

Israel has no designs on Palestine; if they are granted peace, they will return the favour - to the mutual benefit of all.

Israel exists; get used to it.

Tony

They never will. The very existence of Jews is an affront to their religion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Especially if they are not politically ruled by Moslems.

--Brant