At the start of a new week, I’d like to award the best and worst discussions of history in the past week in Israel.
The best take on the past came from Yoram Kaniuk, writing at Ynet (in Hebrew and English translation). Kaniuk writes about the government’s intent to legislate against commemorating the Nakba and Education Minister Gideon Sa’ar’s plan to revise a history textbook for Israel Arab children to erase a sentence about 1948 war saying, “The Arabs call the war the Nakba – a war of catastrophe, loss and humiliation – and the Jews call it the Independence War.”
Kaniuk, who fought in the War of Independence, writes,
I remember the Nakba. I saw it to a much greater extent than the education minister, who apparently only heard about it. It was a harsh, merciless campaign of young soldiers who spilled their blood while fighting a determined enemy that was eventually defeated. Yet the enemy that was defeated is not a geometrical unknown, but rather, a people that still exists. Its parents and grandparents fought well. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have suffered so many casualties.
I was wounded in battle, but I believe that the education minister must educate our young people to be heroes by teaching them that this war had losers too, and that they too have a narrative. They don’t have the country that was theirs but they have a history… The Nakba fighters fought heroically, but we fought better.
Kaniuk is not sorry that his side won in a terrible battle. The victory was creation of the state. It must not be the attempt to erase the history, and therefore the dignity, of the side that lost.
At the start of his poetic article, Kaniuk describes the fortress architecture of the Knesset. His description is accurate; the Knesset belongs to a period of Israeli design in which universities, synagogues, even a legislature were built, unconsciously, to look like fortifications. The Nakba law is an attempt to build fortifications against recognizing the past and the price that another people paid for our independence, he says. He concludes:
While inside the Knesset fortress I thought that maybe it is still possible, before my death, to turn this state into a Jewish State – not one populated by zealous masses called Jews, but rather, Jews like we used to be; a state where we respect those who fought against us and were defeated. When that will happen, we will see the establishment of an Arab state alongside us, and the city of Jerusalem, also known as al-Quds, will become the capital of two states, one Jewish and one Arab. And then peace will come to Israel. Amen.
To be Jews, Kaniuk suggests, we must be able to see history in more than one way, and to recognize the humanity of those who were our enemies, and to be able to look at truth without flinching. This is neither an ethnic nor a religious definition of being Jewish, thought it is rooted in our religious and national history. Were that we could adopt it as a common denominator, the highest common denominator, let us say, for Jewish identity here.
The most foolish take on history in the past week came from Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who ordered Israeli diplomats to circulate a photo of Hajj Amin al-Husseini meeting Hitler. The picture is meant to counter international criticism of plans to turn a hotel inside the Palestinian neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem into a housing project for Jewish settlers. According to various reported versions, the hotel or the land it is on was owned by al-Husseini – the best known Palestinian nationalist leader of the pre-1948 period – or his family.
Somehow the photo is supposed to convince foreign diplomats and leaders that the spot can only be redeemed from the stain of al-Husseini’s support for the Nazis by turning it into a Jewish housing development intended to prevent a political compromise in Jerusalem. An explanation of the connection has not been forthcoming from Lieberman. I won’t claim this is the most absurd exploitation of the Holocaust for political purposes – the competition is so intense – but it deserves dishonorable mention.
I was wounded in battle, but I believe that the education minister must educate our young people to be heroes by teaching them that this war had losers too, and that they too have a narrative. They don’t have the country that was theirs but they have a history, and no education minister can erase the defeated people from its powerful memory. The Nakba fighters fought heroically, but we fought better.
Apologies for the typos.
Short excerpt from “Travels through the Empire of Morocco by John Buffa publish in 1812:
TETUAN 14 March 1806
When we reached the house of the Vice-Consul, I was presented with a gloss of aguardiente, for refreshment. After having passed the evening in the company of a numerous party of Barbary Jews, I retired to bed, and in the morning I waited on the Governor, to pay my respects to him. On our way thither, I was not a little surprised to see our Vice-Consul pull off his slippers as we passed the mosques, and walk bare-footed. I soon learned, that the Jews are compelled to pay this tribute of respect, from which Christians are exempt, although they do not escape very frequent insults when walking through the city.”
Tetuan, 1896
“There is little that is remarkable in this town, beside what I mentioned in my last. Its is twenty miles distant from Ceuta, a Spanish fortress, and twelve from the Mediterranean, and is nearly opposite to the rock of Gibraltar. It has a good trade, and contains about eighty thousand inhabitant, twenty thousand of which are Jews, said to very rich. The Jews are tolerably civilized in their manners, but are dreadfully oppressed by the Moors. Seldom a day passes but some gross contempt or violence is offered to the Jewish women, the generality of whom are very handsome, though their dress is by no means calculated to set off, but rather to detract from, their beauty.”
Sorry, my for my typos again when copying (1806 not 1896). But the content of the quotation makes the point about dhimmitude.
Re: Suzanne’s criticism of one of Bat Ye’Or’s books: “Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis:
” Leon Nemoy The Jewish Quarterly Review,New Ser.,Vol.76,No.2. (Oct.,1985),pp.162-164 Obviously the principal part of the book is the documentary section, which offers to the reader the original views of Muslim theologians and jurists on the general relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, and on how non-Muslim minorities should be treated, as well as the testimony of both non-Muslim minority individuals and foreign observers as to what the Dhimmi’s life was actually like. One might conceivably disagree here and there with Mme. Bat Ye’or’s conclusions drawn from these documents, but one cannot challenge the original Muslim texts, or characterize all the factual accounts of both Dhimmis and foreign observers (some-if not most-of the latter were not exactly philosemites) as a pack of lies pikes justificatives are essentially highly reliable from beginning to end. These testimonies by eyewitnesses on the actual circumstances of non-Muslim life under Muslim rule throughout the medieval and modern periods of history.
“In 1980 Le Dhimmi: Profil de l’opprimé en Orient et en Afrique du Nord depuis la conquête Arabe (The Dhimmi: Profile of the oppressed in the Orient and in North Africa since the Arab conquest) was published. In this she provided a historical survey of the views of Islamic theologians and jurists on the treatment of non-Muslim populations in lands ruled by Islam from the 7th century onwards. The text was supplemented by voluminous primary source correspondence and testimonies of inside and outside observers over the centuries.”
Info courtesy of Wiki
History is littered with idealists like Suzanne who think swords can be turned into ploughshares, or somesuch tomfoolery, by turning the other cheek to one’s enemies. They all ended up in the cemetery.
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
Unfortunately
I think I am getting through to Charlotte. We all end up in the cemetery Charlotte. I do believe we have to let go of hostilities- it’s a sickness- and that it is the only way. I do believe in evolution of the human soul- collective. And I believe that can only happen when people come to know each other.
Bat Ye’or looks upon Islam in Europe as an encroachment and at that by some malicious design. This mirrors those in the Arab/Muslim world that see the West ( and with some cause). That view of Muslims as a threat Bat Ye’or is appears to using this “dhimmitude” history with it’s documentation, which I have no doubt is true to bolster her theories. That is where the reader has to sort out fact from polemic. From the interview of Bat Ye’or and reviews I went so far as to read I get it that we are all supposedly in danger from jihad, especially now with our Muslim loving president Obama here in the US.
Where is the sense that the world is getting more and more crowded and mixed, with incredible inequities and mass media to transmit it all? Where is the sense that that everyone is not only encroaching on everyone else, but in the process mixing and influencing two ways. Where is the notion that as Muslims move to Europe they are getting westernized? And is there possibly anything at all that they contribute? Or is it all jihad.
To Civility-Challenged Charlotte- I am tired of the name calling and insults. I will correct my above to read better and you can go on and on here.
———-
Bat Ye’or looks upon Islam in Europe as an encroachment and at that by some malicious design. This mirrors those in the Arab/Muslim world that see the West the same way ( and with some cause). To transmit her view of Muslims as a threat Bat Ye’or is appears to using her “dhimmitude” history, with it’s documentation that some call valuable, to bolster her theories. That is where the reader has to sort out fact from polemic- as Ploni and others suggest.
From the interview of Bat Ye’or and reviews I read I get it that we are all supposedly in danger from jihad, especially now with our Muslim loving president Obama here in the US.
Where is the sense that the world is getting more and more crowded and mixed, with incredible inequities and suffering and that there is mass media to transmit it all? Where is the sense that that everyone is not only encroaching on everyone else, but in the process they are mixing and influencing each other; it goes two ways.
Where is the notion that as Muslims move to Europe they are getting westernized? And is there possibly anything at all that they contribute? Or is it all jihad.
Ploni, as I understand it, “narrative” means “story” or “account”. Evidently accounts of the same historical event differ according to the position or point of view of the teller of the story, just like a building looks differently from different directions. In practice it’s of course rather like in the story of the blind men describing an elephant.
Acknowledging the validity of a different narrative means not only that the “Others” have every right to view things from their POV, but also to recognise that their inability to see the elephant for what it is is matched by one’s own blindness.
And before you invoke Godwin’s law, let me say that I don’t see this extending beyond one level, i.e. blindness itself is not a “narrative”, much less a valid one.
Some right-wingers, possibly starting with Benny Morris a few years ago, like to invoke Albert Camus’ Chronique Algerienne to justify their brand of colonialism. In fact, Camus explicitly critically acknowledges the competing narratives, going so far at one point as to enumerate what is just and unjust in both the pieds noirs’ (not the same as the French) and the FLN’s claims. Even though Camus, a pied noir himself, was by no means a disinterested outsider, he had the moral fortitude to sincerely consider the justice of the other side’s position without falling into the trap of moral relativism. He was also well-prepared for this by his earlier journalistic work in famine-struck Kabylia.
I too can imagine the conundrum liberal Zionists find themselves in trying to accept the Palestinian narrative, but only if you adopt an either-or, all-or-nothing, Jews-or-goyim approach. In that case, once you’ve ethnically cleansed Jaffa and Lod and Ramle, everything is possible – or conversely, if the Palestinians can hold on to East Jerusalem, they can just as well push the Jews into the sea. I hope we agree these are both non-starters.
But while the Zionism of Jabotinsky and Ben-Gurion has come to dominate intra-Zionist discourse, that doesn’t mean it’s the only possible position (nor, it unfortunately doesn’t go without saying, is Zionism itself the only possible position for Jews).
So far the Jewish state hasn’t even deigned to recognise the barest minimum – that the Palestinians, collectively and individually, were wronged. Israel’s cause is just and it’s all their own fault anyway. Note the current attempts to even criminalise public commemoration of the Nakba.
fiddler, will “the other’s narrative “include the following at their commemoration of their “nakba” – catastrophe:
1943 Amin Al-Husseini creates the Hanzar Division of Nazi Muslim Soldiers in Bosnia. It becomes the largest division of Third Reich and participates actively in the genocide of Serbian, Gypsy, and Jewish populations. Over three hundred thousand men, women and children murdered. Amin Al-Husseini refers to them as the ‘Cream of Islam’. Amin Al-Husseini is made Prime Minister of Pan-Arab Government by Nazi regime. His headquarters are in Berlin.
He plans construction of concentration camp in Nablus (Palestine) to implement the “final solution” in Palestine to exterminate the Jews there, as an extension of Hitler’s plan.
Al Husseini is one of the founders of the Arab League
1948 Arab League (Amin Al Husseini) immediately declares Jihad (Holy War) against Israel. Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan immediately declare war on the new Jewish state and invade Israel.
Secretary General of Arab League Azzam Pasha: “This will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre.”
Amin Al-Husseini: “I declare a Holy War, My Muslim Brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!”
Yasser Arafat was interviewed by Al Sharq Al Awsat (London Arabic Daily) and reprinted in Palestinian daily Al Quds on August 2, 2002:
“We are not Afghanistan… We are the mighty people. Were they able to replace our hero Hajj Amin Al-Husseini?… There were a number of attempts to get rid of Hajj Amin, when they considered him an ally of the Nazis. But even so, he lived in Cairo, and participated in the 1948 War and I was one of his troops.”
1948. Yasser Arafat becomes member of the Muslim Brotherhood and devotes his life to fulfilling Husseini’s vision of ridding Palestine of its Jewish population.
Radical Islamic Jihad and pan-Arabism in its violent form find a common root in Amin Al Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. He is the vector of European fascism into the modern Islamic world, both religious and secular. One cannot understand today’s turbulent world without this information.
History buffs may want to read the complete unabridged article http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/amin_en.html
Suzanne, of course some Muslims moving to Europe (and the other majority non-Muslim countries) become westernized or less religious, but that does not preclude their children wanting to return to the “old ways” just as many secularized Jews and born again Christians have. This resurgence of a Islam has occurred widely in the UK amongst previously secularised Muslims who have created no-go areas for non-Muslims, the introduction of Sharia law, curbs on free speech, and demanded their own schools to educate their children in Islam. Extracts from article “Music, Chess, and other Sins”:
“In the United States, Muslim communities and Islamist advocacy groups are demanding establishment and support of Arabic and Muslim schools. In New York City, controversy erupted over the charter Arabic-language Khalil Gibran International Academy after exposure of the radical associations and statements of its principal Deborah Almontaser,and over Minnesota’s Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy after an investigative reporter exposed Islamist indoctrination in the state-funded school. Expansion of the Islamic Saudi Academy in Virginia has also come under fire after exposure of textbooks preaching hate and intolerance. While Muslim schools in the United States are a relatively new phenomenon, in the United Kingdom they are better established. In February 2009, Civitas, a London-based think tank dedicated to the discussion of social problems and civic society, published a 154-page report, excerpted below, exploring the challenge to social cohesion presented by many Muslim schools in the United Kingdom. There are twenty-four Saudi schools in the United Kingdom alone; many of the other 132 registered Muslim schools have Saudi ties.
Civitas followed links on school websites that often led to the sites of radical preachers, locations where children could buy books and CDs by extremist writers and, in a couple of cases, sites that gave direct access to jihadi material. Some extremists founded schools, and others sat on school advisory boards. Many guest speakers preached extremism. Abu Yusuf Riyadh ul Haq, a known anti-Semite, anti-Christian, and inciter of pro-jihad violence, was a teacher of Hadith, Arabic, and Islamic studies at a school in Kidderminster. Murtaza Khan, a vicious anti-Semite, taught at Al-Noor school in Ilford. These figures and others inveighed against Western society, indoctrinated children to have nothing to do with non-Muslims, forbade participation in Christmas festivities, and described non-Muslims as the corrupt and decadent enemies of all Muslims. Already, the retardation of social integration caused by such schools is apparent in British society. Because Muslim schools in the United States share some of the same sponsors and have adopted similar curricula to their British counterparts, the Civitas survey may also highlight a growing problem in the U.S. education system that should be addressed directly”….
…..Here is another example of what pupils may expect to find:
“Islam has ordered us Muslims to fight against the enemies of Islam and not be like the Jew and make other nations fight their wars. We as Muslims may share in Hitlers hatered [sic] for the Jews but we cannot praise him for the manner in which he went about killing the Jews (if the history books are correct). You should understand that we as Muslims firmly believe that the person who doesn’t believe in Allah as he is required to, is a disbeliever who would be doomed to Hell eternally. Thus one of the primary responsibilities of the Muslim ruler is to spread Islam throughout the world, thus saving people from eternal damnation… if a country doesn’t allow the propagation of Islam to its inhabitants in a suitable manner or creates hindrances to this, then the Muslim ruler would be justifying (sic) in waging Jihad against this country.”
http://www.meforum.org/2415/music-chess-sins
I’d like to nominate Charlotte for the South Jerusalem Verbal Diarrhea Award.
Ah,Duncan, as Corporal Jones said in Dad’s Army about the Germans, “they don’t like it up ’em!”
Some people just can’t handle the truth, eh Duncan.
I believe that Mr Kaniuk should be taken to the Hague for war crimes tribunals. It is important that we acknowledge the roles of not just the Eichmanns of the zionist movement but its willing followers as well. A simple apology does not satisfy anyone. His interview proves his guilt, and I hope the spends the rest of his life behind bars at the Hague
You are all detached from reality. Jaffa ethnically cleansed? I wanted to go to Jaffa last night and my friends told me: That is Arab territory, dont go. Israeli police avoids Jaffa. There are 1.2 million Arabs living in Israel. No Jew enters their villages. One anecdote: I was involved in the building of Arara WWTP in the Negev. The beduins shot at us and the plant (built to serve the Beduins and paid by Israeli taxpayers) was delayed 2 years. Thankfully they are bad shooters. I say, let them live in their own sewage to the neck. I am not going to cleanse them, ethnically or otherwise. The Germans already gave up financing and building sewage plants in Hebron and Samaria – the plants are destroyed and sold as scrap iron as soon they leave.
Well at least you’re capable of humour Charlotte. I’m going to weigh in here as I’ve got a bit of time on my hands.
Understanding the narrative of ‘the other side’ is important to try and acheive a shared narrative for a peaceful future. It’s like unravelling any argument, you need to find out where you went wrong and where the other party went wrong and in order to do that you have to understand both sides. As long as you can strip away feelings of Biblical entitlement it should be possible to arrive at a common set of values with which to pick apart the injustices of this ghastly episode. That is if Israel leaves anyone alive to negotiate with.
The Palestinians of the 1940s were not responsible for the Jewish expulsion from their historic lands or the holocaust in WWII. Israel should not have declared independence and expected the Palestinians to accept it, but they had the right to defend themselves when attacked. Palestinians may well have left some homes, some were stolen, but none of those people relinquished the right to their land. Palestinians are not responsible for the expulsion of Jews from other Arab states.
If Israel, if I can just speak generally, refuses to engage in this process of reconciliation then it shouldn’t expect sympathy from the rest of the world. If Israel is to be a project of conquest, bloodshed, theft and persecution, then why should the rest of the world, where for the most part Jews live in peace and security, feel obligated to care if this project ends in disaster? Virtually no-one alive today took part in the holocaust and with every passing year the memory fades and the waving around of Nazi pictures and general flag-waving about that period has less impact and looks more ridiculous. In fact if it is a simply to be a fight, then let it be a fair fight could be the growing consensus in the world. Given that Israel is maintained by foreign aid this should be a concern for its citizens.
Yes, Duncan, I am capable of humour, but I don’t suffer fools gladly.
“As long as you can strip away feelings of Biblical entitlement it should be possible to arrive at a common set of values…”
I don’t know who the “you” is that you postulate here – yourself perhaps? How are you going to “strip away feelings of Biblical entitlement” from Jews? How are you going to “strip away” feelings of Islamic ummah entitlement from Muslim Arabs?
Seems to me from this and your past comments that it’s always your own set of values and viewpoint that you think is the correct one and that must be imposed on others.Obviously they don’t agree with you and will fight you to the death, because their own principles are as important to them as yours are to you. That is human nature and the way of the world.
The Partition Plan of 29 November 1947 created an Arab state and a Jewish State, with Jerusalem as a corpus separatum under the UN. Arabs and Jews had a window of a year to relocate to their respective state if they wished, but had full and equal citizenship rights in the state where they resided if they chose to stay put. The two states were to have economic union and share other services.
The Jews accepted, the Arabs refused and declared war on the Jews.
“Israel should not have declared independence…”
Israel had no choice but to declare independence. The Partition Plan confirmed Britain’s withdrawal on 1 August 1948. The Jews had to organise themselves and defend themselves against the Arabs’ intention to slaughter them. This is recorded in British documents available to view online.
“The Palestinians of the 1940s were not responsible for the Jewish expulsion from their historic lands or the holocaust in WWII…”
There was no group of Arabs who identified themselves as “Palestinian” Arabs until 1964, one of Arafat’s propaganda ploys.
I suggest you read the genocidal exploits of the Mufti of Jerusalem and his Hanzers in Bosnia Herzogovina in WWII, and his plans to continue Hitler’s Final Solution by building an extermination camp in Nablus. Here are a few details:
1943 Amin Al-Husseini creates the Hanzar Division of Nazi Muslim Soldiers in Bosnia. It becomes the largest division of Third Reich and participates actively in the genocide of Serbian, Gypsy, and Jewish populations. Over three hundred thousand men, women and children murdered. Amin Al-Husseini refers to them as the ‘Cream of Islam’.
min Al-Husseini is made Prime Minister of Pan-Arab Government by Nazi regime. His headquarters are in Berlin.
He plans construction of concentration camp in Nablus (Palestine) to implement the “final solution” in Palestine to exterminate the Jews there, as an extension of Hitler’s plan.
Al Husseini is one of the founders of the Arab League
1948 Arab League (Amin Al Husseini) immediately declares Jihad (Holy War) against Israel. Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan immediately declare war on the new Jewish state and invade Israel.
Secretary General of Arab League Azzam Pasha: “This will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre.”
Secretary General of Arab League Azzam Pasha: “This will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre.”
Radical Islamic Jihad and pan-Arabism in its violent form find a common root in Amin Al Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. He is the vector of European fascism into the modern Islamic world, both religious and secular. One cannot understand today’s turbulent world without this information.
“If Israel….refuses to engage in this process of reconciliation…”
I suggest you return from planet Zog where you appear to reside and read up on Fatah’s recent shindig in which they put in a claim for a Judenrein Jerusalem, both East and West and airbrush Jews from Jerusalem’s history. Try Palestinian Media Watch for info.
I also suggest that before pontificating on the causes and solutions of the Arab/Israeli conflict you study some historical facts.
I assume you were being ironic when you wrote “Seems to me from this and your past comments that it’s always your own set of values and viewpoint that you think is the correct one and that must be imposed on others“.
Digging up endless selected quotes from Arabs who’ve hated Jews has limited usefulness Charlotte, especially ones that are 50, 60 and especially over 200 years old. Churchill’s views on the Germans aren’t really relevant today and Wellington’s views on the French even less so. The Nazis had many allies and many Arabs fought against them (see here). Muslims in countries like Albania helped shelter Jews escaping the holocaust and several Arab states signed up with allies, including Saudi Arabia, albeit in 1945. There are people like you on both sides and there are people like Gershom Gorenberg on both sides. Historical perspective is important but you seem to see only one side of it. Clearly understanding the other side’s narrative is not for you.
Maybe I should have also said the UN shouldn’t have tried to disenfranchise the Palestinians (which I’m sure you’re aware is commonly used as a shorthand for the Arab population of Palestine) from their lands by imposing a partition. I was just giving a few examples. If the UN proposed a partition giving independence to an Arab community inside Israel would you support it? The were quite right to refuse to go along with the partition if that’s the way they felt. Who gave the occupying power the right to establish a Jewish State? Who gave the Jews the right to a homeland in Israel, God? I thought you didn’t believe in revealed religion. It follows therefore that you believe you deserve something if you can take it by force. Why should I respect that point of view or the person who espouses it?
The idea that no-one is entitled to a piece of land unless they legally own it is hardly a radical idea but one that seems to enjoy some kind of consensus in the world.
Given the persecution the Palestinian Arabs have suffered it is little wonder hostile statements are made towards the persecutor. But that’s the point isn’t it. Push people to the edge and when you get a reaction wave the red flag and use it to justify more persecution.
Duncan, the historical perspective I see in the Middle East, is the conquest by Muslim Arabs in holy jihad and their cruel domination of non-Muslims in the name of Islam for 1400 years. The Jews have suffered under Islam for 1400 years, an oppression alleviated only by European colonialism and the creation of Israel, their own State. A quote from Maimonides:
“..the Arabs have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us…Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they…”
Nothing has changed in the Arab world. Of course I know there have always been people of goodwill who seek peace, but they are powerless – especially in the Arab world. You mentioned Albanian Muslims, but their form of Europeanized Islam is different from that of Arabs – Wiki: “The country won its independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1912….. Islam underwent radical changes. In 1923, following the government program, the Albanian Muslim congress convened at Tirana decided to break with the Caliphate, established a new form of prayer (standing, instead of the traditional salah ritual), banished polygamy and the mandatory use of veil (hijab) by women in public, practices forced on the urban population by the Ottomans.”
As for your twaddle about “Palestinians” being “disenfranchised” by the creation of Israel. According to British statistics, more than 70 percent of the land in what would become Israel was not owned by Arab farmers, it belonged to the mandatory government. Those lands reverted to Israeli control after the departure of the British. Nearly 9 percent of the land was owned by Jews and about 3 percent by Arabs who became citizens of Israel. That means only about 18 percent belonged to Arabs who left the country before and after the Arab invasion of Israel.
The Arabs were never interested in creating a “Palestinian” state for themselves. They were only interested in destroying an infidel Jewish state:
Arafat, an Egyptian, is recorded as saying to the UN Security Council on 31 May 1956: “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria. Article 24 of the 1964 PLO Charter: “This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, (or) on the Gaza Strip….”
“The idea that no-one is entitled to a piece of land unless they legally own it is hardly a radical idea..”
Your western idea legal of entitlement is not shared by Arabs who take ownership by force – as their religion instructs – they do not worry about who they steal from as it is “God’s” will. You accuse Jews of being theives, but you defend Arab theives:
Arab League Secretary Azzam Pasha on the Partition Plan (16 September 1947):
“The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It’s likely, Mr. Horowitz, that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won’t get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we’ll succeed, but we’ll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it’s too late to talk of peaceful solutions.”
Were the Arab conquerors “entitled” to Spain and Persia? Or the Middle East? Were the Arabs “entitled” to slaughter and oppress Jews (and Christians)? I think the Jews had every right to claim back their own territory from their oppressors. Because, contrary to popular misconception, nearly half the Jewish population of Israel are not European “colonisers” but “indigenous” Middle Eastern Jews who have “every right” to live in their own Middle Eastern State free of Muslim persecution and and dhimmification.
I find it strange that you, a Westerner, instead of championing the creation of a free state for Jews, instead support their Islamic oppressors. But then you know what they say about the last one the crocodile eats.
Well Charlotte
Maimonides? You’re going to give me Maimonides? Again you trot off examples of arab antipathy through the ages. If you keep going back like that you reach the indigenous tribes of the region slaughtered by Jewish invaders. I mean it’s in the Book, there’s no getting away from it. So what’s the point? We’re talking about the justice of living memory, of the rights of occupying powers to impose settlements on the occupied. Trying to find a way forward so that people can live in security which means understanding things from another’s perspective. Not seeing them as relentless bloodthirsty monsters.
I find it strange that you, a Westerner, instead of championing the creation of a free state for Jews, instead support their Islamic oppressors
You do know that Israel are currently the oppressors right? Tell me that you realise at least that much. Again you accuse me of something without foundation, supporting arab thieves. It would be nice if the Islamic world had a more progressive European approach to religion but unfortunately that is hampered by the view that Europe (and the US) imposed the humiliation of Israel upon them. Resolving this issue would likely see some changes in the region as far as religion is concerned.
And this notion that the term ‘Palestinian’ is some kind of propaganda ploy. If everyone was Palestinian and then the Jews became Israel, aren’t the arabs Palestinian by default? Not that there’s any genetic difference between the people of the region.
So have the last word Charlotte, I’m done with this thread. I’m sure we’ll pick it up again elsewhere.
Nice try Duncan- you are a better man than I am. I believe Charlotte has her head stuck in the past and can’t see forward. That’s the nub of it.
I’ve been absent for some time. I should have checked this earlier.
Suzanne- I’m glad you read my comments. I think we agree on many points.
I know this is from many posts ago, but I’m going to address it anyway.
You say that Israelis and Jews have a right to fear that Obama will not support Israel if there happens to be a war with Iran.
This is propaganda. We have been taught to think this way but it is simply false. Just because an American president doesn’t support Israeli settlements in the territories does not mean he will deny Israel the billions of dollars in aid that make sure Israel will have such good weapons that America will never even NEED to intervene in a war on Israel’s behalf. Because of America, ISRAEL WILL NEVER BE DESTROYED. NEVER. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a reactionary who’s trying to scare you.
Dear Benny,
Maybe it was a different Suzanne but I don’t recall what I said about Obama not supporting Israel if Israel attacks Iran. But I don’t think the US has to get involved if Israel acts unilaterally against our ( and Israel’s own , not to mention the region’s) interests.
It may be that the administration here in the US is using Israel as the “bad cop” to soften Iran, psychologically speaking, in a game of brinksmanship. In reality though, an attack on Iran by Israel would be a horrible thing for both countries and the region, from what I have read about the probabilities of what would ensue.
I think that the US should have a security treaty with Israel in case Israel is attacked. That would be a form of deterrence. Israel seems to be doing quite well militarily. I don’t think, though, that being armed to the teeth and being at war (or not having a formal peace) with Palestinians and surrounding neighbors are helping Israel’s security. Also pumping weapons into Israel has a point of diminishing returns. Israel becomes a fortress and does not feel such urgency to make peace. I think this is so now.
I don’t recall saying I have read your comments.
I’m amazed that Gershom/Haim permit their site to be used for Nazi propaganda promotion. One can argue on behalf of Arabs and their claims without degenerating into vile obscenities unless, of course, this blog supports the standards that Swedish newspaper holds to, protected (and paid for) by the Swedish government (see http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2009/08/gut-reaction.html). Why allow Nazi terminology?