If you don’t want to be duly bored and disgusted by what Hussein Ibish has to say in his latest interview with Jeffrey Goldberg then allow me to sum it up for you:
- no dialogue with the democratically elected government in Gaza
- equates Jewish Voice for Peace with the Zionist Organization of America.
- spends his time and efforts attempting and failing to discredit the one state solution.
- says that Israeli one staters would fill a small auditorium, therefore the whole thing is futile. (Why he would allow Israelis to frame the argument for Palestinians in mind boggling.)
- wants J Street to be more serious about Israel’s security needs (yup!).
- wants people to forget the BDS talk because the U.S. loves Israel so Palestinians should respect that.
- one staters are bad because they say mean things about Zionism.
- wants Palestinians to stop blaming the Israelis for being occupied.
What a despicable guy.
The only good thing about Hussein Ibish is that he is completely irrelevant in Palestine and among Palestinians. He doesn’t speak for Palestinians, he only speaks for people like Mohammad Dahlan who likes to terrorize Palestinian Christians in Gaza and then blame it on Hamas.
While the rest of progressive Palestinians, Arabs and Jews are fighting for a true and just peace in Palestine, Ibish is defending criminals and turncoats like Dahlan, Fayyad and Abbas. Who nominated this guy to drag down the Palestinian cause and attempt to stifle the hard work being done in the name of freedom, liberty, democracy and justice? He regularly attacks people like Ali Abunimeh, Omar Barghouti, Joseph Massad and As`ad Abukhalil for being stuck in the "60′s" but they’re the only ones that have raised the level of discourse to include not only the Palestinian struggle for freedom from occupation but also the struggle to liberate themselves from corrupt and backwards leaders, like the kind Ibish is advocating be forced on them.
I like Ibish’s take more than Seham’s.
Seham give backbone, but backbone to rush headlong into a cul-de-sac of rage only.
No wonder you don’t like Seham and take every opportunity to attack him here — he has a spine and passion. That makes him the polar opposite of you.
I think Ibish represents spine and passion, for pursuing an approach with ALL of his capabilities, rather than only his rage.
Including the part where Gaza remains a Zionist-run concentration camp because he thinks the rest of the Palestinians should abandon them? Oh, not to mention the fact that he attacks his fellow Palestinians verbally. No wonder you like Ibish — he’s almost as phony as you are.
Witty, I can end each of my sentences with a happy emoticon if it will make you feel better.
No dice, Seham. You’ll always be the angry black ma– oh, whoops, sorry, the angry Palestinian in his eyes.
Agreeing to disagree would be better.
Not when “agreeing to disagree” allows more homes to be bulldozed and future bombing campaigns against urban civilian populations.
And you are effective at stopping that by ranting at liberal me?
Your brand of liberals have been very effective, haven’t you? Effective at making it hard to convey the seriousness of IDF crimes, for instance. Effective at supporting attacks on human rights organizations which expose those crimes, and effective at repeating misinformation about what everyone “knows”.
And that’s not just snark at little old you either–a great many liberals in the pundit class and in Congress have done their best to whitewash Israeli crimes. I don’t blame ordinary people for this–unless you’re really interested in the subject, you’re only going to know as much about it as filters through the press.
Again an intentional discipline to reform, respecting the other, is more likely to be effective at persuading them than brow-beating.
In order to be effective at communicating to an intelligent person requires humility, that one doesn’t know everything, and intentionally comprehensive self-education.
There is no persuading you, Witty. We’ve witnessed you deny outright facts.
I really wonder who Ibish represents.
I’ve slowly seen this guy go from being retarded to insanely retarded in such a short period of time. Its as if he represents the so called “Moderate Arab” (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt) political position in the United States, and then assumes that the Saudi Political position is indeed the position of the Arab American community.
The Saudi’s, Jordanians, and Egyptian governments make all the same claims that Ibish does:
No 1 state solution
Don’t criticize Israel to much, don’t want to piss them off ok!
OMG IRAN!
Hamas is bad, Fatah is good.
Abbas is the greatest thing since santa claus!
And of course their are retards in Jordan, Egypt, and SA that have actually stated that the Palestinians are in the position they are in because they don’t go to the mosque enough… as if its easy to get to a mosque under a brutal occupation… They only say these things because they want the guilt of aiding the Israeli occupation to be off their hands…
I don’t know a single Palestinian who supports ATFP (or as As’ad AbuKhalil calls them, The Dahlan Task Force for Palestine.
Seham, come on, this post could have been written by a child (we are all children). Where is the analysis? Tell me why he is wrong (one-state solution is bad) and back it up. You didn’t even quote him. Instead you represented your interpretation of his comments using dashes.
Do you really need me to explain why it is wrong for someone that supposedly represents Palestinian interests is hostile to the one-state solution abd to the BDS movement? And you need me to go into detail about why it’s bad that he wants to force hooligans and traitors like Dahlan and Abbas onto the Palestinian people? I just figured that if people were reading this site that they already knew the basics.
I believe in the one-state solution. However, even if Ibish does not, it makes no sense to take that off the table as a bargaining chip. None. The Israelis are stealing more and more land on a daily basis. More Palestinians were kicked out of their homes this morning, settlers took over a home of a 87 year old woman. These things are happening not just in E. Jerusalem but in the West Bank , daily. Does it make sense to you that Ibish is advocating for Palestinians to allow the Israelis to frame every aspect of the negotiations?
Maybe “common knowledge” isn’t.
As a potential threat, the one-state solution has some weight.
Seham,
I don’t understand why you would want to live intimately in a society in which my views are on the very kind edge of attitudes towards Palestinians and Arabs.
How would that be better for Palestinians if they are politically and economically subordinate in a democracy, rather than at least attempt to be independant and peer in a Palestinian state democracy?
Its a serious question.
It relates to whether the one-state is an actual goal, or just a tactic?
Witty, I’m not going to bother with long drawn out answers to you anymore. I’ve done it several times and then you disappear only to reappear on another thread and ask the same retarded questions over and over again. Total waste of time.
“As a potential threat, the one-state solution has some weight.”
Witty, you’re a propagandist of the worst sort. You make anything the Palestinians do sound like it’s engineered to be some threat to the security of Israel. Hell, even when they’re just living at home in East Jerusalem, that’s a threat.
Seham,
Try again. It’ll be good practice when dealing with the other thickheads you’ll have to convey your reasoning.
I think you vastly overestimate how much esteem your opinion carries, Witty, and therefore how much effort earning it merits.
“Try again. It’ll be good practice when dealing with the other thickheads you’ll have to convey your reasoning.”
Hey, Richard, when you’re finished patronizing Seham there maybe you could resolve to end that behavior pattern he identified–the one where you ignore detailed replies to your posts and show up elsewhere with the same questions. I noticed you said absolutely nothing about that, and only repeated your own point–almost as though you were acting out a stereotypical behavior pattern you’ve fallen into (or chosen).
And then you could follow your own advice and start replying, as good practice for dealing with all the thickheads you’ll meet.
Is it necessary to spell out whats wrong with Ibish’s positions?
Lets just take a look at them.
1) No dialogue with the elected representatives of the Palestinian people.
How is that not a retarded position?
2) Equates Jewish Voice for Peace with the Zionist Organization of America.
Really? Anyone that makes such a comparison has to be mentally retarded. Is it even necessary to debate that?
3) spends his time and efforts attempting and failing to discredit the one state solution.
The one state solution has been debated to death on this blog. In fact there’s an entire section devoted to it, under the burning issues segment on the sidebar. Scroll up and take a look for yourself.
4) says that Israeli one staters would fill a small auditorium, therefore the whole thing is futile.
Seham actually addresses this when he states: “Why he would allow Israelis to frame the argument for Palestinians in mind boggling.” Seriously, we’ve had enough of Israel telling the Palestinians how to run their struggle for liberation.
5) wants J Street to be more serious about Israel’s security needs .
Really? J-Streets platform is all about a secure Israel. Name one policy of J-Street that even compromises Israels security. J-Street joined the witch hunt against Goldstone, what more could an Israeli firster want? Again whats there to debate?
6) wants people to forget the BDS talk because the U.S. loves Israel so Palestinians should respect that.
If you can’t see the retardation in Ibish’s position here, then God help you.
7) one staters are bad because they say mean things about Zionism.
cry me a river.
8) wants Palestinians to stop blaming the Israelis for being occupied.
Can a position be anymore retarded than that? Who else should the Palestinians blame for the occupation?
There is another alternative than “let Israelis frame” OR “we frame”.
That is to listen to each other.
The model. I won’t listen to you because you didn’t listen to me, is a circle.
Tell that to the Palestinians who are having their homes bulldozed RIGHT NOW, Witty.
Are they here?
You sound like some of the right-wing Zionists that I argue with as well.
“Are they here?” No, they’re busy being rendered homeless, you sanctimonious double-dealing heartless bastard. You could tell them if you got off your fat “college town” ass and joined a protest movement, went out to East Jerusalem and stood between their home and the bulldozer, like some of us are planning on doing.
Chaos,
You are yelling rather than doing.
If you are willing to put your ass on the line, in fact, I respect that. That is more than talk. I worry for your safety though.
Are you serious about it?
While you are there, please make a point of speaking to some Israelis as well, some liberals (not just radicals and not just likudniks). Look up Uri Avneri, or Harvey Stein that posted here for a while.
Oh, piss off with your fake concern. Like I keep saying, you don’t give a damn about anyone who’s not Jewish (and even quite a few who are) and you prove it every damn time.
Are you going in fact? Or was it just talk?
My concern was real. You are a human being.
Eventually I plan to, yes. I am trying to make arrangements to be there for the Gaza Freedom March. It’ll probably require me to tap my retirement investments but who are we kidding? That money isn’t going to be there when I retire, assuming I am, even. I’ll probably need to pull out of that account just for college expenses anyway.
Witty, I’ve been to anti-war/anti-occupation protests stateside, and I live in one of the poorer American cities. Gunfire, overzealous officers and threats of violence don’t exactly scare me that easily, thank you.
Response to J. Bradley:
1.) Everybody talks to China even though their government isn’t democratically elected. Abbas’ mandate ended in January (if I am not mistaken) but this doesn not spell out the current situation that Washington want to mediate a peace between the two parties and that Abbas and his cronies are better partners for peace than the alternative (Hamas).
2.) Your description over simplifies what he says. He says that both organizations are one-state supporters, but for different reasons and imagine this one state as two very different things. These two contrasting visions of one state between the river and the see are neither desired nor possible. There is just too much animosity.
3.) Can you tell me the percentage of Palestinians and Israelis supporting the one-state solution? This blog isn’t the world. So what if it is “debated” here. How much times has Phil Weiss spent at the location he writes about all the time I/P? Claiming that the one-state solution has been frequently debated falsely suggests that it has changed what Israelis and Palestinians, or even just Palestinians, want.
4.) How about because the Israelis are those with the power to elect those to the position to implement one policy over the other, one state or two state, or maybe even 3 states? Why are you so convinced that the Palestinians want a one-state solution?
5.) I have no issue with this one.
6.) BDS is a fight against Google and Intel, two knowledge companies praised by the public. From the numbers he gives about American investment in Israel, it would be futile for the Palestinians to campaign to the US to withdraw all the investment it has put in Israel. No matter how much you like to think that the I/P model is the South Africa model, it does not make it so. BDS only makes their enemy invest in Israel more.
7.) Childish analysis.
8.) No quotes.
So what are you going to the do with the majority population (the Jews) w/ a one state solution? what if they don’t want it?
The majority of Israeli Jews and probably some Israeli Arabs would be adamently against a one state solution. Have you thought about them? Is it even in a one-staters line of thinking or is it all about pushing the Jews out once a single state is created?
Majority population? Actually, when you take the full measure of Palestinians — Arab Israelis, Palestinians under occupation and refugee families with full rights to return under international law — I’m pretty sure “the Jews,” as you so tactfully address them, are not, in fact, the majority.
Hi Yonira,
It already is a one state solution. But it’s a one-state solution where the Palestinians have zero rights.
It’s amazing that the one-state solution becomes terrifying to so many Zionists only when people start talking in terms of: one person, one vote. The one-state solution is just fine as long as the Zionists get to keep their boots on Palestinian necks.
Its not fine by me.
I believe in reform.
Gee, Witty, and maybe if you clap your hands fast enough, it’ll happen! Meanwhile, the rest of us actual liberals in the real world are doing the hard work.
Or, if WE ALL work for reform, rather than complain only, it will happen.
Thanks for not addressing any of my questions, like usually.
The UNWRA definition of a refugee is a joke, and thats where you get your numbers from. Will all Jews be able to move back to Arab countries once this one-state solution is created? how about their descendants? Will Arab country welcome them w/ open arms?
Who will be able ot immigrate to Palestine? Will Zionism be outlawed?
What about civil war? you guys honestly believe that 2 ppl who have been at each others throats, raised to hate each other, will just be able to live peacefully together?
All you ever do is complain, and rest on the laurels of your inflated supposed liberal credentials. I actually go out to protest movements. I’m active on my college campus. I contribute my time and effort and money. You aren’t interested in reform. All you ever do is knife everything that even approaches reform and anyone who actually forwards it and make room for Israel to drive their armored bulldozers through.
“The UNWRA definition of a refugee is a joke..”
The UNWRA definition of a refugee is international law. You to be touting democracy in action — tell me, was there a Jewish majority in Palestine in 1947?
I don’t go to protest movements, except for those that advocate for peace.
I do speak publicly to small groups on the history of Palestinians’ experience (from my reading and the few Palestinian leaders that I’ve met). Before you start ranting, the presentation is of the validity of the description of the nakba, that Palestinians suffered and arbitrarily.
And, I do periodically fundraise in a limited way, mostly for peacemaking efforts involving cross-cultural communications (sports, music).
And, I write and speak to my representatives, Israeli officials, press, others, when they come to my area.
They are not world changing, but they are actions.
Most importantly, I get educated. I read. I don’t believe that I’ve frankly ever read an overtly propagandistic pro-Zionist text. The history that I read is balanced, academic. And, I do read views that I expect to offend me. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t.
So Witty, did you ever deign to involve yourself with any of the protests against Operation Cast Lead? (I believe I already know the answer to that question, but consider it asked out of rhetorical courtesy)
I went to a peace demonstration near Hampshire College, in which there were some speakers that advocated for a greater Israel and were booed, while most prayed for the rockets to stop and advocated for a cease-fire.
There was a pro-Palestinian counter-demonstration that taunted the peace rally. In an environment in which there were 800 peace seekers, the 30 radicals scared away the prospective audience by taunting rather than describing.
There is no such thing as a “peace” rally. You nor your tribe, have a monopoly on the concept of peace.
You went to a rally for Zionists.
I don’t trust your commentary on the pro-Palestinian protesters. You are a pathological liar so I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re telling us yet another one of your tall tales.
After all, you – a Nazi – keep repeating the lie that Hamas broke the ceasefire.
Oooooh! Hampshire College! Yeah, I should have picked up on that earlier. No wonder Mr. Zionist is so bitter and aggressive toward liberals, anti-occupation protestors and the BDS movement.
Chaos,
Again, your response is silly and malevolent. I fit in perfectly at Hampshire. I know a number of professors and students well.
In polls of the Hampshire boycott initiative, there was a large minority that supported the divestment because it provided some feedback that they didn’t approve of many of the policies and practices of Israel. Only a few enthusiastically supported and angry sentiment underlying it. A much larger majority of those that signed the divestment petition, asserted in polls (definitely informal, information not authority), that their primary goal was peace.
At the peace demonstrations that I attended, at least a large minority were individuals that signed or were sympathetic with the divestment proposal. Many supported the sentiment and opposed the method.
MANY MORE opposed the rancor.
You’re like an onion, Witty. There’s always one more layer to peel that gives revelation into who you really are and where you’re speaking from.
Was the abolition movement in the US ever a majority? The civil rights movement? Female suffrage? Any of the anti-war movements, particularly Vietnam forward? Hell, even Zionism was the minority Jewish opinion, let alone world opinion, back before the foundations of AIPAC and the greater K Street were laid.
A silent majority does not equate to tacit support for your position, Witty.
So, be a vanguard if you like.
There is a difference between the abolition movements, Vietnam, South Africa even, and Israel/Palestine.
That is that unless the form of dissent is careful and considerate, the result of the dissent is likely to be some violent conflict, a pendulum swing (hopefully the pendulum will swing less intensely in each iterration. It depends how it is conducted though.)
It is better to avoid that to my mind, no matter what should be.
You can be a minority and be good: abolition, anti-Vietnam War (not really a minority in fact), civil rights (also not really a minority). And, you can be a minority and do evil in the hope of doing good (Bolsheviks). And, you can be a minority and do evil in the hope of something opportunistic or ruthless (fascism, military coups, naziism).
It really does take care for a movement that is at root a deep conflict, to not devolve as this periodically does horrendously.
Witty: “You can be a minority and be good: abolition, anti-Vietnam War (not really a minority in fact), civil rights (also not really a minority).” Witty, all those movements started out as minority movements and only gradually earned majority consensus. Same with the anti-S African BDS movement. I personally experienced the slow change regarding civil rights, Vietnam, and apartheid S Africa. Your version of reality requires the freezing of time. Do you imagine you sprang full grown from the loins of your mother?
“The history that I read is balanced, academic. ”
It might be academic, but on this subject that doesn’t necessarily mean balanced. People were writing histories of Israel and Zionism before Benny Morris started investigating the expulsions of 48, and those expulsions weren’t a secret to Arabs, yet it took an Israeli historian to give them his stamp of approval before they became a reality in the West.
Your own statements regarding 48 haven’t sounded balanced–you put the blame mostly on Irgun.
Donald,
Just go the library, find “A History of Israel” by Sachar, read a little (read the chapters on relations with Palestinians) and determine for yourself if it is fair or biased.
Jeez, do you need a taste-tester for every drop of food you eat? Are you that scared?
Witty, why on earth do you think you’re qualified to speak on ” the history of Palestinians’ experience?”
Seriously, why do you do this? I’m genuinely curious. There is no dearth of Palestinians here in the states.
“Jeez, do you need a taste-tester for every drop of food you eat? Are you that scared? ”
Petrified–of wasting time. There’s nothing of any special interest to me in the history of Zionism as such or any other form of nationalism (including the Palestinian variety), though I have read some in both areas. And to be honest, much of it is boring. Political movements often are. I’m aware of the institution building aspect of the movement, the parts that are admirable, or would be if the question of Palestinian rights didn’t hang over the whole subject. What interests me in the subject, on both sides, are the human rights issues. Who did what to whom. Who killed, who stole, who oppressed, who lied about it afterwards. Needless to say there are killers on both sides. And, oh yes, it’s also interesting to read about the people who had good intentions, but I get a sense of that in books books I’ve already read. I doubt that anything in the Sachar book is going to fundamentally change one’s view of the conflict, unless one had a view of Zionists as all demon figures from some far left morality play, but then, the books I’ve already read don’t paint that picture anyway. And Sachar’s book isn’t going to change what I know already about 1948 or what happened later.
Why not have the israeli’s go back to Russia, Latvia, Poland, and Brooklyn where they came from?If they want ajewish supremacist state, then build one in Florida. Problem solved.
I remember when Ibish used to appear on the cable news networks all the time during the early 2000′s. I thought he was a stand up guy. I dont know what got to him…
Money with dead American Presidents printed on it, most likely.
Newsflash: most Israelis were born in Israel. Game over, try again.
Quite a lot of them are going. This will only increase as the religious fanatics take over the country.
You really mean that Olive?
I know some armed likudniks that think that Palestinians don’t have a right to live there as well.
I find both “ideals” sickeningly repugnant.
“Newsflash: most Israelis were born in Israel. Game over, try again. “
It’s already been established by Israeli policy that being born in Palestine is not a prerequisite for living there. Guess again.
@ carnas
“Newsflash: most Israelis were born in Israel. Game over, try again.”
Doesnt really matter does? Their parents came to Palestine and stole that land. If they cannot act like human beings than it is time to give it back and go live with your aunt Esther in Brooklyn.
@Witty
Do I mean that? Not really, I was just venting. I would prefer that the area be ruled under Islamic multiculturism, just as it had under the Caliphates of the past. Jews and Christians lived peaceful and dignified lives under the protection of the Islamic system.
As for the likudiniks, why should I care what those oppressors think?
Chaos,
if reform is denial of the holocaust and Jewish conspiracies about world domination, no i am not interested. If i thought there was any possibility for a one-state solution where Jews could have the same liberties and security granted to them by the state of Israel I’d be down. but its not reality…..
You mean like how Jews were living in Palestine, and, well, pretty much all over the Arab world (and Iran) before Zionists perpetrated the Nakba? You mean like that? You mean like how Jews live comfortably as equals in the United States, Canada and yes, even Europe now? You mean like that?
But obviously you don’t want that, do you? You want your “Jewish state” — you want your little Judenreich where Jews get to be the ubermenschen and everyone else has to be second class citizens, huh? Because obviously the above examples aren’t enough for you.
Read of the actual history of Jews under the Caliphates. They were dhimmis with protection and severe restrictions and taxes (similar to ghettos). They were better than how Europeans treated Jews though.
And, often when there were internal power struggles, the “protected” aspect of dhimmi status, went out the window.
It would be nice. Saying that the Caliphate was utopian in the way that you did, is similar to the description of Israel as unequivocally and application of equal rights.
Or, were you joking Olive?
olive, are you really that ignorant? I’ll give it another go: most of them don’t have aunts in Brooklyn. The majority came from Arab countries where there are no Jews left.
Majority? Try barely half, carnas.
Chaos, a similar level of equality was also achieved by Jews in Europe before WWII. A lot of good that did.
As for the likudiniks, why should I care what those oppressors think?
The point was the next line.
“I find both “ideals” sickeningly repugnant. “
“Chaos, a similar level of equality was also achieved by Jews in Europe before WWII. A lot of good that did. “
Really? And how many millions of Jews were slaughtered in the Middle East? I forget the exact statistic. Please enlighten me.
“Newsflash: most Israelis were born in Israel. Game over, try again. ”
So were ALL Palestinians.
“Read of the actual history of Jews under the Caliphates. They were dhimmis with protection and severe restrictions and taxes (similar to ghettos). They were better than how Europeans treated Jews though.”
You mean like Isreli Arabs for example?
At least the Jews were safe under the Caliphate. Small wonder when the muslims left andalusian Spain, the Jews followed them, having enjoyed protection under Muslisms rule and (rightly) fearing severe persecution from the Christians. Ironically, the Jews have decided that the Muslisms are now their enemy.
The Jews were not safe under the Caliphate. They were periodically safe and only in very subordinate status, comparable to the annexed West Bank in the 80′s. Comparable to the status that would exist in a likud annexation now, that you strategize as the basis for BDS.
Cranas,
Get real. The majority of Jews came from Eastern and Western Europe, not Arab countries.
The Jews as safe under the Caliphate as any minority religion could hope to have been at the time. They certainly weren’t ebing killed, enthniclalyt cleasnsed or evicted from their homes a la West Bank in the 80’s.. And in every case where 2 religions co-exited, the minority or weaker party woudl always assume subordinate status.
Close to a majority of Israeli Jewish residents are descendants of Sephardics, Islamic umma.
Please read your post on the dhimmi status. Rather than object to subordination and the preference tor remedy of that status, you suggest that it should be accepted.
And, it is in the context of Olive originating the thread by “send them back where they came from”.
There is another alternative, which is to be an advocate of democracy in the present.
For me, partition optimizes that, and with a peace there is then no justifiable obstacle to then assertively urge reforms to realize the equal rights promised in the Israeli basis laws, and necessarily similar commitment in Palestinian law.
Sephardics, Witty? Those were the victims of the Spanish Inquisitions after the Christians took over again in Spain, right? After Muslims from North Africa went into Spain, conquered the government there and freed the Jews where being kept as slaves, yes?
Mr. Witty, I know that you love Israel very much and wish to defend it to the best of your ability but historical revision is (in my opinion) not the wat to go. Lets see what respected jewish academics have to say about Jews living under the Caliphate:
Heinrich Graetz, a 19th century Jewish historian praising Islamic rule:
“It was in these favourable circumstances that the Spanish Jews came under the rule of Mahometans, as whose allies they esteemed themselves the equals of their co-religionists in Babylonia and Persia. They were kindly treated, obtained religious liberty, of which they had so long been deprived, were permitted to exercise jurisdiction over their co-religionists, and were only obliged, like the conquered Christians, to pay poll tax…” (H. Graetz. History of the Jews. London,1892, Vol 3, p. 112.)
Italian Rabbi, Obadiah Yareh Da Bertinoro, 1486 CE in a letter to his father
“The Jews are not persecuted by the Arabs in these parts. I have travelled through the country in its length and breadth, and none of them has put an obstacle in my way. They are very kind to strangers, particularly to anyone who does not know the language; and if they see many Jews together they are not annoyed by it. In my opinion, an intelligent man versed in political science might easily raise himself to be chief of the Jews as well as of the Arabs…”(Rabbi Obadiah Yareh Da Bertinoro, quoted in The Jewish Caravan edited by Leo W. Schwarz, The Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, 1946, p. 249)
Amnon Cohen (Jewish Historian
“The Jews went to the Muslim court for a variety of reasons, but the overwhelming fact was their ongoing and almost permanent presence there. This indicates that they went there not only in search of justice, but did so hoping, or rather knowing, that more often than not they would attain redress when wronged…”(A World Within: Jewish Life as Reflected in Muslim Court Documents from the Sijill of Jerusalem (XVIth Century). Part One, 1994, Pennsylvania, p. 17.)
And finally lets not forget Uri Averny
“Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for 50 generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times ‘by the sword’ to get them to abandon their faith.”
Uri Avnery, September 27, 2006
More of this stuff can be found in the work of Andreas Tzortzis
link to hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com
Read the actual history of dhimmi status in the Moslem world. I expect that it really was much better than the brutality of Europe, but it was NOT as ideal as you present.
Jews were taxed, were ghettoized, were prohibited from practicing many profession, were prohibited from voting, as the RULE.
Beyond the rule, often when there were power struggles among the elite, Jews were scapegoated and periodically forcefully removed and looted. I’m not sure how many generations it takes for Jews to be “comfortable” and “safe”.
Permanence is best. Historically, Jews have rationally concluded that the only way to make their safety anything resembling permanent requires a state. That is the Zionist thesis.
The form of that thesis can change, but unless you can convey confidently that safety is offered permanently, and not in the dhimmi status but as equals in accordance with democratic principles, then the Zionist thesis has a point.
@ Witty
I find it diasppointing that you chose to ignore the Jewish rabbis, academics, and activists who have acknowledged the superiority of Caliphial rule and decided to revert to the same old talking points. I will address your points, nonetheless:
“Jews were taxed, were ghettoized, were prohibited from practicing many profession, were prohibited from voting, as the RULE.”
Muslims were taxed as well. The taxes that Muslims had to pay was more than the poll tax that the Jews had to pay. Whereas dhimmis (non-Muslims citizens under the protection of the Caliphate). The minimum that dhimmis had to pay was one dinar (4.235 grams of gold) per person (if they can afford it). The maximum is whatever both sides agree on. Muslims on the other hand, had to pay 2.5% of all their wealth annually! Sounds like the Jews got the better deal on that one to me. As for being ghettoized, the Jews ghettoized themselves. This was done 1..) because Jews have historically looked down on us dirty Gentiles and 2.) the Jews (and Christians) were allowed their own religious court system by the Caliphate, so it was easier to have the community together for judicial proceedings.
Mr. Witty, I have provided evidence (including footnotes) of Jews living peaceful and dignified lives under the Caliphate. You have not provided any evidence and assuming what you said was true, historians agree that bad conduct in the caliphate was the exception rather than the norm. Simply put, the Caliphial sysem provides better governance for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. For Zionists to turn around and start making up allegations that the Caliphate was so oppressive for the Jews is blatant historical revisionism ala Holocaust denial and smacks of ingratitude.
Witty: “The Jews were not safe under the Caliphate. Cite your sources. Jews were taxed, were ghettoized, were prohibited from practicing many profession, were prohibited from voting, as the RULE. Again, cite your sources, and while you’re at it describe what precisely what vote in what country you’re talking about.
A few days ago, you and I had a conversation about Canada. You pompously proclaimed, and insisted, that Canada only got it’s independence in the 1980s; your point being long after Israel, of course, and presumably, independence from Britain.
No amount of facts would convince you that you were wrong, that you basically pulled wishful thinking out of your ass. [For those who dont know the difference, or who dont care to know more than a couple of sentences, here's the truth of it: Canada is a constitutional monarchy. Canada, unlike the US, insists on the separation of the head of government and the head of state. It feels, and has felt for hundreds of years, that making both the same puts too much power in one man's hands, the way a Clinton, or Bush, or Obama has. So, the head of state is the Queen -- because they like that arrangement, besides she's over the pond -- with her reps being the Governor General at the fed level and the Lieutenant-Governors at the provincial level, and the head of government is the Prime Minister.
So Witty argued that The Constitution Act of 1982 or 1983 was Canada's declaration of independence from Britain, instead of the federalization of the government part of above equation. And nothing and no one was going to convince him he was wrong. Just like the ridiculous and pompous statement above Again an intentional discipline to reform, respecting the other, is more likely to be effective at persuading them than brow-beating. To which I say, tell that tot he Israelis, not us.]
Granted, olive, in its historical context, the Caliphate was tolerant and enlightened. But why must one group dominate? I think secular democracy offers a far better option, for any number of reasons.
Shmuel, these well researched articles can answer your question better than I can:
What is the Caliphate?: link to hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com
Is Islamic Society Barbaric?: link to hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com
On the Fallacy of Using Liberalism as a Universal Model: link to hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com
Don’t get trapped in the false dichotomy, Schmuel, or in apples to oranges comparisons. At its time, medieval Islamic society was very progressive. Maybe it wouldn’t be considered progressive by today’s standards, but that’s besides the point. The point is, Islamic society trends toward tolerance in a way that Christian (and Jewish, apparently) society can’t lay claim to. I think that would bode well for the natural evolution of Islamic society, were it not stifled by periodic “crusades” by the West (like the one we are engaged in now, and let’s not beat around the bush on that)
Thanks, olive. Tzortzis’ articles are interesting, and his critique of liberal societies as well as the idea of a one-size-fits-all political system are certainly valid. What I fail to see is how the solution he proposes would resolve any of those problems – especially in a situation, like in Palestine, where at least half the population does not share Islamic values. His historical references are anachronistic – eg. he refers to the freedom of Christians and Jews to be judged by their own religious courts, without taking into acount that many of us today, do not wish to be judged according to religious laws of any kind, and that even religion itself is far more diverse than ever before. There are certainly other methods of preventing crime and ensuring social cohesion, while granting a maximum of individual freedom, and to the extent that western thought on these subjects is somewhat utopian, so are Tzortzis’ ideas.
On the whole, Tzortzis presents a beautiful picture that might appeal to Muslims (assuming his vision could ever be implemented, without suffering the very same ills as the European systems he criticises). I could easily suggest a parallel model based on Jewish law, and I’m sure that someone versed in Canon Law could do the same. None of these however, would be acceptable to those who do not share their respective values. As imperfect as it may be, a system that recognises a wide range of values would appear to be best suited to most of today’s heterogeneous societies.
Chaos, Islamic rule certainly has a far better track record than Christian rule, and we can only speculate about Jewish religious rule. The late Prof. David Flusser sugested that had Judaism ever wielded the power that Christianity had, it would probably have been at least as brutal. My disagreement with olive had to do with the applicability of the Califate model to Palestine, in the form of Islamic multiculturalism, and its preference over liberal democracy.
Olive,
If you bothered to read my post, I acknowledged that Jews living under the Caliphate had a generally better experience than the brutality of most of Europe.
It was a subordinated status. Liveable, if you obeyed. If you didn’t, not so liveable.
Same as for Israeli Palestinians. NOT a good suggestion.
Okay just a couple of quick points responding to Shmuel and Witty.
@ Witty
I have read your post Witty and find that you are either inattentive to the evidence I brought forth or have deliberately ignored it because it contradicts the modern Zionist claim of being the victim all the time. You make a rather interesting claim about the Caliphate: “Liveable, if you obeyed. If you didn’t, not so liveable” But isnt this the case for any people under any government. If you and I decide to not obey the loves of the USA, then we will find our lives quickly being not so liveable. Your argument seems more of a rhetorical flourish than an actual argument.
@ Shmuel
You also said something interesting (although not as far out as Witty’s, to be fair). You say: ” I could easily suggest a parallel model based on Jewish law, and I’m sure that someone versed in Canon Law could do the same. ” My answer to this is then please do. Show us a conceptual link where Jewish values expressed during Jewish rule led to results similar to the Caliphate. As for Christian canon law, it is debatable if Christians even have a scriptual-based legal system since Christianity is very secular in nature. “Give Caesar what is unto Caesar and Give God what is unto God (Gospel of Mark). Besides, when Christian canon law did rule , it resulted in something called the Dark Ages of Europe. As a matter of fact, Liberalism and Humanism were reactions againts this Christian rule. Also, is there not tension between your above statement and this other statement you made: “The late Prof. David Flusser sugested that had Judaism ever wielded the power that Christianity had, it would probably have been at least as brutal”. Assuming that you agree with Prof. Flusser, how can you say that you can easily give us a parellel model with that of the Caliphate’s?
Olive,
My point was that the historical precedent of the Califate is anachronistic and therefore fails to prove anything regarding the very different conditions of the present and the future. A new system would thus have to be devised, based on the principles and values of Islam, using the Califate as a source of inspiration. Judaism could just as easily devise such a new system, perhaps based on Maimonides’ Laws of Kings, which provides a blueprint for a utopian Jewish-ruled society. Flusser’s assessment aside, I think Judaism (assuming there is a single such entity or religio-philosophical system) is at this point at least as capable as Islam (again assuming there is a single such entity) of devising a relatively just and socially cohesive religious polity. The exercise is futile however, because it posits broad acceptance of religious values by those who do not share them – whether because they espouse other religious values or whether their values are not religious at all. To attempt to impose these values (as opposed to a system that strives to allow different value systems to co-exist) would be an act of violence and a recipe for disaster. To attempt to impose such a system in Palestine, in order to resolve differences between Palestinian Muslims/Christians and Jews is completely unthinkable.
Oops. I forgot Palestinian and Israeli atheists and agnostics – a formidable group if there ever was one!
Olive,
Your arguments and posts have been simply masterful.
I expect the Arab Israelis would be very much in favor of a one-state solution. It’s the two-state version that worries a lot of them, who don’t really want to be citizens of a Palestinian state.
As for the Jews, the people who have been declaring that the West Bank is part of Israel are Jews. Let the others take it up with them. Or with Old IAM who gave them the title.
Now the interesting thing about a one-state solution is that, in theory, every citizen’s opinion would have equal weight. So, suppose the majority of both Jews and Arabs don’t like the situation. Fine, they can vote to partition the state. But then, they would have to vote on how to partition the state, with what boundaries. Except that, in theory, unlike now, it wouldn’t be a unilateral decision on the part of one party (the Jews) but everyone.
Gee whiz. Why don’t the Arab Israelis want to be part of the Palestinian state, even if they don’t have to move?
Because who wouldn’t want to live day in day out being roughed up by IDF thugs or getting run out of your home by armed Jewish extremist settlers paid off by the Israeli government, huh carnas?
Wait, isn’t that what you’d have us believe they go through anyway?
No, because in Israel, they don’t get roughed up nearly so often. It would take away from the time they get to spend scrubbing toilets and hauling garbage for the “Jewish state,” after all.
Kinda like the African-Americans serve you your Whopper, chaos? The US is such a model of equality!
Actually, in fact, that’s in incredibly astute observation for you, carnas. There are a wealth of comparisons that can be drawn between the treatment of Palestinians by Israel and that of African Americans as an ethnic group whose ancestors were, quite literally, slaves and who must still function in a society in which they are discriminated against at every turn. I mean, it’s similar right down to the lynch mobs and the “Whites/Jews Only” signs. Thanks!
As usual, Carnas has nothing to say, but he has to say something nasty anyway.
In fact, the reason the Arab Israelis don’t want to lose their citizenship seems to be attachment to their homes and access to government services.
Maybe you’d better treat your own society before you rant about others.
Pot calling the kettle black – going once, going twice, sold.
What makes you think I don’t? What makes drawing attention to the injustices against African Americans mutually exclusive to drawing attention to the injustices against Palestinians? I manage to do both just fine, here. In fact, as you kindly enlightened me to the opportunity, I could be doing both at the same time! You’ve actually been a big help, carnas.
“Gee whiz. Why don’t the Arab Israelis want to be part of the Palestinian state, even if they don’t have to move? ”
I dunno, maybe because they’ll become Israel’s new shooting gallery, or perhaps they saw what Israel means (ie, scortched earth policies) when it “withdraws” from a terirtory.
“Maybe you’d better treat your own society before you rant about others.
Pot calling the kettle black – going once, going twice, sold. ”
Maybe you should stop drawing wealfare cheques and taxpayer funded weapons from the US before you get all self righteous about Americans treatment of others.
Chaos,
you’ve gone of the deep end. Whites/Jews only signs? are you kidding me? I would love to see a sign which said that, anywhere…..
Two signs, yonira. Back in the days of segregation, there were signs that said “Whites Only.” Today, in Israel and the occupied territories, there are signs that say (in so many words) “Jews Only.”
Zionism: Using ignorance (feigned and otherwise) as a talking point for over sixty years.
“Maybe you’d better treat your own society before you rant about others.”
We are. That’s why we dont want to give $3 billion in taxpayer cash and $12 billion in indirect taxpayer funds to Israel every year. We want it to stay here so our darkies dont have to make Whoppers in perpetuity, as you put it. The $75 billion in taxpayer funds that we’ve given Israel since Katrina hit could have rebuilt the Ninth Ward.
Time you got off our teat. Let’s see Israeli genius flourish then.
There are a wealth of comparisons that can be drawn between the treatment of Palestinians by Israel and that of African Americans as an ethnic group whose ancestors were, quite literally, slaves and who must still function in a society in which they are discriminated against at every turn.
I don’t mean to diminish the reality of discrimination against African Americans in America, but the parallel isn’t very convincing. Is there a Palestinian equivalent of Oprah Winfrey in Israel? Of Bill Cosby or the incredible number of black entertainers? Of black athletes? There is a large number of black millionaires in America, and a few billionaires. Is that true of Palestinians in Israel?
Black Americans aren’t represented proportionally in politics in America, though they are certainly far ahead of the representation that Palestinians have in “democratic” Jewish Israel. And they are way ahead of Palestinians as far as having representation in cultural “elite” circles. There’s simply no comparison.
Despite the enormous number of blacks living in poverty, there is nevertheless an incredible number of highly successful black Americans in business, media, the arts, education, etc. There is no comparable number of Palestinians living such a life in Israel. Would Israeli society embrace a Palestinian the way Oprah has been embraced by much of America?
There is an equally disastrous poor white population in America that parallels the poor black population (and Hispanic and others). America is very class-based, though it pretends not to be. The same is true in Israel: there are many poor Jews. The difference is that in Israel, there has been no effective civil rights movement for Palestinians like there has been for blacks in America, a movement that has allowed a large number of African Americans (and other communities, most notably Hispanic) to move into more “elite” circles. The Palestinians suffer a double whammy in Israel: class and ethnic/religious persecution.
There is apparently no people without its quislings, traitors and turncoats.
Why would a Palestinian living as an Israeli citizen (who at least has a job scrubbing Israeli toilets) give that up to live in the ghettoized state (where there is 80% unemployment due to the Israeli occupation) that Israel wants to create in the West Bank and Gaza?
The one state solution is the only solution left, Israel killed the two state solution decades ago. Its time we get over that and start creating the new state instead of whining about stupid bullshit like “what would we call a state with Arabs and Jews”
Wasn’t the news filled early this year with Israeli leaders’ descriptions of the kind of separate Palestine state acceptable to them, and did those descriptions meet the minimum requirements for recognition of a sovereign state?
Bingo, Citizen.
Uh-oh looks like the puppets forgot to send a memo to Ibish before he wrote his book:
Palestinian state may have to be abandoned – Erekat
link to reuters.com
Stopping the settlement construction was Obama’s last chance to make the two-state solution work. His failure to reign in Zionist militants pretty much spells the end for his vaunted Middle East peace initiatives (which is probably just as well, because Israel’s trick move to derail the process later on, which they’ve been setting up for months now, would be a “pre-emptive strike” on Iran).
Israel has left the world with no choice — the only route through justice and reconciliation, now, is one state where Jewish voices no longer count for more than indigenous ones.
Read How Eurocentric is your day?
link to pulsemedia.org
You, in particular, Witty.
Seham, I wish you hadn’t called Hussein Ibish “despicable.” I don’t know what that achieves in an argument and I wonder whether if I ever cross one of your red lines I’ll become despicable too. I should add that while I don’t agree with the views he put forward here as you relate them, Ibish once helped me on an anti-neocons story, back when, Phil
Phil,
I forwarded the exchange regarding “despicable” to you.
Ibish is a big boy and can handle being called despicable , he has called people much, much worse.
I don’t think I have to many “red lines” Phil, it’s not extreme to be appalled by someone who claims to speak for the Palestinian people on the one hand and then support criminal, undemocratic and corrupt people as leaders of the Palestinian people on the other–and that’s what Ibish does.
I can’t assume the responsibility of being the show case Arab though, I mean that I don’t want to be the “model” for how a Palestinian should behave in discourse with soft Zionists like Ibish. All that I want to be responsible for is my own opinion on the news in how it relates to Palestinians, nothing more.