Ali Abunimah responds:
"It is encouraging to see CNN address this issue and take it seriously. Of course such a short report cannot really get below the surface but it put one state on the agenda as something to talk about. In the report, Omar Barghouti was putting forward new ideas — which perhaps viewers would never have heard articulated clearly and seriously. Then there was Danny Ayalon, a member of Avigdor Lieberman’s racist Yisrael Beitenu putting forward the same old defensive arguments for something called a "Jewish democratic state" something all experience tells us is an oxymoron and an impossibility. So the report reflects the current state of play: Israel still has enormous power just through inertia, but in the field of ideas it is on the defensive and has nothing convincing to offer. The one state solution can no longer simply be ridiculed and dismissed. We still have a long way to go, but its a great place to be for now and it is something to build on."
Anyone else notice how, in point of fact, Witty’s posts are literally parroting the message coming out of the Israeli Foreign Ministry? Like, word for word? Fancy that.
I point this out to understand why I dog Witty so hard. By going after him, I am, in effect, confronting Israel’s de facto representation on this blog.
Omar Barghouti is the eloquent, non violent, peace advocate of the Palestinian people.
I expect him to end up in a cell next to Mohammed Othman the next time he goes to visit the Occupied Territories.
There is no good reason to dog anyone, Chaos. I’m surprised that Phil permits it, especially now that you convey that so openly.
Its distressing to hear Omar Barghouti say the falsehood of “we always got along before”, given the history of riots (with the purpose of ethnic cleansing), and agitated prohibition from Jewish migration to the land.
Its a stacked deck, with a false mythology that serves noone currently.
Are you denying that there were Jews in Palestine during Ottoman rule? Are you denying that the riots happened after Zionists had already begun what would become their reign of terror?
Stop trying to distract from the point that I made. You are repeating, word for word, the line of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. Anyone with eyes, ears and the capacity to read can compare what you write to what Danny Ayalon, Deputy Minister of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, says and the words are the same. The very words.
In other words, you are merely a shill.
Its not a falsehood Richard.
Jews, Muslims, and Christians got along just fine before Zionists from Europe showed up with the intent of colonizing and expelling the indigenous population from their land.
The riots and everything else that happened were a response to European Zionists and their violent methods that were aimed at the indigenous Palestinian population with the sole intent of creating a country on land that was already inhabited by another people.
Its quite simple Richard: Zionism and what it stands for in the context of Palestine is the sole impediment to peace. The fact that you CANNOT even accept living with the indigenous people of Palestine as equal citizens is testament to that.
In any case, you are the one that is promoting the false mythology that has been debunked so many times that we are just getting tired of spelling it out for you every time you decide to bring it up again.
Bullshit.
In 1920 there were riots, in 1929, in 1936-39, in 1947, in 1948.
And, in the 19th century there were also periodic riots whenever there was a power struggle.
The slogan “what did Palestinians do to deserve the consequences of European conflicts” is quaint, but denies the reality of the world. The Palestinians are partially indigenous, and partially fairly recent immigrants. It is a lie to state “we were always there”.
Zionism is long-standing. The only question that you will solve by your rhetoric is the geographic distribution of what land is Zionist from what is Palestinian from what is democratic. There is NO possibility of Israeli acceptance of a single-state currently, 0.
So, given that, given the acceptance that both people are there, and deserve the respect of self-governance (not imposed nation-building), I again favor a generous allocation of land to Palestine, a statement of good faith, a statement of intent to respect a healthy good neighbor Palestine.
It definitely is not happening currently. But, your wasted voices keeps it delayed.
So all of the European Zionists magically appeared in Palestine in 1948? There were no Zionists in Palestine in the prior years you cited.
You’re the one full of shit, Witty. Either that you really are clinical in your utter denial.
Wow Richard, got any more lies for us to debunk for ya?
In 1920 there were riots, in 1929, in 1936-39, in 1947, in 1948.
Uhm… Zionuts like yourself had been immigrating to Palestine since the late 1800′s. They began coming in large numbers in the 1930′s. However, the express goal of every single Zionist like yourself was to create a European ethnocracy in the Middle East on a land that was already heavily populated by a LARGE indigenous population. The Palestinians KNEW this, they resisted, just like you, me, or any other rational person would.
The Palestinians are partially indigenous, and partially fairly recent immigrants. It is a lie to state “we were always there”.
Can you be any more racist? The vast majority of Palestinians were in fact indigenous, very FEW of them were recent immigrants, and the entire notion that the Palestinians of 1948 were recent immigrants as detailed in the fraud of book “A Time Immemorial” has been debunked to hell and back. Are you going to continue debating with lies, or fess up to the facts Witty? Furthermore, did the indigenous population of Palestine deserve to have their land stolen, their villages destroyed, their women raped, to create a racist ethnic state for you to gloat over?
But, your wasted voices keeps it delayed.
Actually, its your voice that has delayed peace. The Palestinians are in a state of virtual submission to Israel, Israel holds EVERY card, its the Israelis that are brutally occupying the Palestinians, its the Palestinians that are living in refugee camps not the Israelis.
You have all the power, you are the enabler, you have the chance to create peace, but you REFUSE to do so. Its time you fessed up to that. If you gave a shit you would be demanding that Israel change its policies, but you don’t. You continue to support Israel no matter what it does, you supported the massacre in Gaza, you support the brutal siege on on Gaza, you don’t even dare to take punitive measures against the settlers even though according to you they are a road block to peace.
You aren’t willing to take off the kiddy gloves when it comes to your racist utopia, however, other Americans, other tax paying Americans mind you, are sick and tired of Israel getting away with all this bullshit in our name. I don’t want to see another Palestinian baby have his face melted away with my tax dollars, but you don’t give a shit, its all good to you because you believe that Israel has the exclusive right to behave like a colonial settler state of the 19th century, and that my tax dollars have to support that.
The phrase “tour de force” comes to mind. I’ve got nothing to add, accept gratitude for your commentary.
Huh. Strange, but you forgot to mention the racist arrogance that an early Zionist Ahad Ha’am complained about as early as 1891. He described how early Zionists at that time treated the Arab peasants with contempt, beating them for no reason, acting like they were inferior. I was wondering why you did that, given your eager mention of Arab violence (most of it in response to the obvious Zionist desire to take over the land with the help of the British after the Balfour declaration). It’s almost like you’re trying to paint a one-sided picture. Surely you wouldn’t do that, not a confirmed peacemaker like yourself?
“It is a lie to state “we were always there”.
More Witty hypocrisy. All of a sudden it matters when someone’s ancestors moved into a region–apparently those whose ancestors were there for centuries have more claim than more recent immigrants, at least if we’re talking about Arabs. Totally irrelevant for Jews, apparently, who are allowed to make all sorts of claims and have an automatic right to immigrate there. The claim about Arab immigration has a Joan Peters ring to it too, by the way. Not surprising. At least it’s not as noxious as Nakba denial, when Witty defended Wiesel’s bullshit the other day.
It is not Israel’s rightful prerogative to decide between one or two states. They have de facto annexed the West Bank, which they obscure only through apartheid (the denial of equal rights to Palestinian residents). A state may not expel rightful citizens against their will (even along with territory). That would be overt ethnic cleansing.
Palestinians may not generally favor a one-state solution now. But it is undeniably their decision to make.
“In 1920 there were riots, in 1929, in 1936-39, in 1947, in 1948.”
Which proves James and Chaos’ argument, because the European Jews had alrwady begun emigrating to Palestine.
Palestinians were always there in so much as they were there as long as any Jewish people were there.
Zionism is a recent inventions, created by Hertlz in the 19th century.
Is there anything else you need help understanding?
James,
Read some Palestinian analyses on Palestinian immigration. Its not just Joan Peters, or Alan Dershowitz.
Read Khalidi. Or new historians Baruch Kimmerling. There was migration of Palestinians into the land at approximately the same time as the Zionist immigration. Some of the immigration was routine, Bedouin and other migrants that settled as their formerly traditional life-style changed, some due to improvement in economic conditions of Arab villages and community (innovation in Arab citrus growing), some due to improvement in general economic conditions due to Zionist money and some employment coming into the general economy.
The Finkelstein “we dashed Joan Peters” is an example of a straw dog. Joan Peters (or Dershowitz) took some “facts” for granted, weren’t skeptical of the sources of their conclusions and therefore didn’t document them. Some of their assumptions turned out to be untrue, even made up on the spot. But, some were accurate, descriptive. The “straw dog” is in declaring “everything he/she says is untrue” when that is itself untrue, and believing someone like Finkelstein without skepticism is academically as careless as what he criticizes. (Its not just Norman, though he is a poster child for his name-calling.)
The Palestinians are not in a state of much objective submission in the areas that there is interface. They do not control much of their relations to the outside world.
The question that I ask is what is the manner by which that will change? There is NO perfection, there is no magical “revolution”. Change in status, change in self-awareness of status, occurs by work and reflection.
And, the work that is going on now, by the PA, IS the work that is needed. Abbas yesterday stated that if the settlement freeze is enacted including in East Jerusalem, that he believes that peace is possible within six months.
George Mitchell yesterday announced that the US will proceed to address the construction of peace from the basis of the 67 borders, with consented modifications.
Again, the question that I am asking, is “how do you get there”?, with the implication of keeping to discipline, avoiding distraction, so that the 6 months possible, actually is 6 months and not 60 years.
That should be “they are in a state of objective submission where there is an interface”.
“Again, the question that I am asking, is “how do you get there”?, with the implication of keeping to discipline, avoiding distraction, so that the 6 months possible, actually is 6 months and not 60 years.”
This is the fundamental basis of you dishonesty Witty. You keep demanding that we all propose solutions as to how to get there, but are only prepared to contemplate the ones you consider to be palatable.
Thus, any repercussions or consequences for Israel must be as painless as possible or you dismiss them. The only solution you want to hear is one that continues to indulge Israel and treat Israel with kid gloves.
“Thus, any repercussions or consequences for Israel must be as painless as possible or you dismiss them. The only solution you want to hear is one that continues to indulge Israel and treat Israel with kid gloves.
That is his bottom line–it permeates everything he says. Witty has been unusually forthright in the past few days. Arab atrocities are to be mentioned and judged in the harshest terms (which is fine by me), but when Wiesel’s Nakba denial is brought out Witty defends his point of view. When Israeli forces commit at least 20 massacres and drive hundreds of thousands of Arabs from their homes and shoot thousands who try to come back, that’s not ethnic cleansing in Witty’s lexicon, because his heroes were involved. And the Gaza War was at worst the careless killing of some civilians, in contrast with the fiendish deliberate killing conducted by the Evil Arabs. And of course the blockade on Gaza is either Israel protecting its borders (including Gaza’s coast, apparently) or else it’s all up to Hamas, since a blockade that impoverishes 1.5 million Arabs is acceptable until Hamas says what Witty wants. But BDS is unacceptable.
Witty represents a fairly widespread perception on the part of many (not all) liberal Zionists–he sees his side, the mainstream Zionists, as incapable of wrongdoing and yet in his self-perceived magnaminity he is willing to make peace (on his terms) with a bunch of people led by cold blooded murderers. All of his moral preening and posturing makes sense (in a racist kind of way) from that perspective.
This would be the pathology of some narcissist online, but unfortunately it’s also the general perception cultivated by the MSM and you can see it in many “Israel defenders”. Israeli crimes are not taken seriously–only a certain minimally defined subset are admitted and criticized, while every Palestinian act of violence is harshly condemned.
How unfortunate that the Israeli gov’t has no intention of freezing settlements or adhering to the ’67 border.
Its distressing to hear Omar Barghouti say the falsehood of “we always got along before”
You do know that Faisal ultimately rejected the agreement between him and Chaim Weizman.
The presence of the agreement is also evidence that Zionists did NOT intend annexation, but primarily residence, and that other external forces intervened to propagate the early Zionists as threat.
The Arab way of life was changing radically at the time, independantly of Zionist presence, though certainly that new extent and tone of Jewish presence was a contributor. The early agitation against Jews was VERY conservative, reactionary, rejecting both Zionist and all new Turkish, British and new Arab institutions, rational and needed or not.
“You do know that Faisal ultimately rejected the agreement between him and Chaim Weizman.”
According to what source Witty?
“The early agitation against Jews was VERY conservative, reactionary, rejecting both Zionist and all new Turkish, British and new Arab institutions, rational and needed or not.”
It’s nice to see you withdrawing a great deal from your earlier debunked rhetoric. You often do this when confronted by those who know more about the topic than you.
Of course, there is no evidence of this early agitation against Jews either.
Sorry to bring an unsourced history, but my understanding is that the agreement between Faisal and Weizman was based on the understanding that Palestine would not be ruled by a foreign entity and that in case it would be ruled by a foreign entity, the agreement was null and void. I believe that Faisal wrote his proviso in Arabic next to his signature on the agreement. When the League of Nations gave Britain the mandate for Palestine this meant that Faisal’s agreement was null and void.
(I read this in the book version of “Pillar of Fire” which was a pro Zionist documentary. The book included a photo of the document that was signed and there was writing in Arabic next to Faisal’s signature.)
Hey Witty, and other zionist shills, it is so easy to utterly take apart your arguments. I am a neo-Canaanite … a descendant of the people jews committed a holocaust against quite a while back. But like long lost Native American tribes that suddenly reappear when a casino can be built I am back now with my people. That land you claim is yours for your jews is really ours, for the Canaanites – we were there first. We intend to make it a Canaan state for the Canaan people and set up checkpoints for you jews and isolate you in refugee camps. We think the Palestinians may be our descendants so we may let them in our state.
wow you are class act.
Here in America we talk a lot about 1SS or 2SS.
Over there in the mideast, everyone talks about the AS – Armed Solution.
I wonder who knows best.
Well, neither 2SS or 1SS is going to happen peacably, thanks to Israel. They’ve really given the rest of the world no choice. If you need any further example of that, just look at the threats being leveled by Israel at Great Britain presently. I think we’ve just about reached the boiling point, and it saddens me to contemplate where things will go from here.
Yes I hear Livni wants the Brits to change their rules and laws to cover up Israeli war crimes.
Mililband, the UK’s FM has ‘promised’ to change this law to help Livni, who’s known as a war criminal by the British people.
Truth is he wouldn’t dare change this law – otherwise he knows he will dearly pay the price at the next election. The Brits are more savvy at mideast politics than us yankee doodles with blindfolds willfully on.
Well, he can’t change the law — unless I miss my guess and don’t understand British politics as well as I think I do (and admittedly my knowledge is somewhat limited), there is nowhere near majority support for something as atrocious as changing laws to accommodate suspected war criminals.
To say nothing of the fact that the UK is bound by its commitments to the EU charter.
You’re right on all points, Chaos.
Just look at what they’ve done to Blair post Iraq.
When exactly are we going to ask our politicians the same questions about Iraq that the Brits demanded of their leaders?!!
Which law are you talking about?
I believe the over-riding law is one of the Geneva Conventions, promulgated in 1949, that allowed anyone (indeed obliged anyone) , anywhere, the right to arrest and prosecute suspected war criminals.
This has nothing to do with the nationality of the ‘prosecutors’ (Spain, Sweden, Britain, Italy) that are going after these criminals, and, at least, are denying them a welcome.
I hope at least that Tzipi Livni, Ehud Barak and Dorog Almog continue to be scared about visiting Britain, and that, maybe perhaps, a US law firm will take up the same subject,
Israeli leaders ‘harassed’ on Gaza records
So now Britain is going to change the law so they won’t be harassed.
You’re too cynical, potsherd. I don’t think even if they could do that, that British politics are as broken and corrupt as American politics.
The assertion that Jews got along just fine in Palestine before the advent of Zionism is false. There was an anti Jewish pogrom in Safed in 1834. But of course just one episode does not prove the impossibility of getting along.
But the possibility of getting along has not been proved either. If the preZionist Jewish population of Palestine was 5%, primarily poor and dependent on handouts and overwhelmingly submissive to Muslim authorities, this then proves nothing about a situation when the Jewish population will be something like 50%, richer than the average Muslim and overwhelmingly unsubmissive.
(There exists a middle ground between Jewish supremacism and Jewish submission, but nowhere has it been demonstrated that this middle ground was the situation in Palestine before the advent of Zionism.)
The operative word in that statement is “if.” The situation you describe is not real. You don’t make a convincing argument that Zionism is anything other than an attitude that Jews are supremacist and deserve to rule over everyone else in Palestine.
Muslims have, for the vast span of history, shielded Jews and gave them rights and civil protections, whereas on average the Christian response to Jews has ranged from discrimination to slavery to burning at the stake.
And then there’s the sixty years of Jewish-centric rule we have documented in recent history.
So one pogrom, which was actually a bandit attack on a Jewish village, amongst many other villages (including several Muslim and Christian ones) in 1834 means that Israel has the right to be a Jewish Supremacist state, ethnically cleanse the indigenous population, and deny Palestinians living in refugee camps the right to return to this very day?
Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived in relative harmony in Palestine prior to the arrival of Zionist colonizers from Europe. This is not disputed.
Furthermore, various Jewish groups in the Ottoman Empire (as Palestine was a part of during 1834) did incredibly well economically:
“Under the Millet system the Jews were organized as a community on the basis of religion, alongside the other millets (e.g. Orthodox millet, Armenian millet, etc.). In the framework of the millet they had a considerable amount of administrative autonomy and were represented by the Hakham Bashi. The Hakham Bashi held broad powers to legislate, judge and enforce the laws among the Jews of Ottoman Turkey and often sat on the Sultan’s divan.
The Ottoman Jews enjoyed similar privileges to those of the Orthodox. The city of Thessaloniki received a great influx of Jews in the 15th century and soon flourished economically to such an extent that, during the 18th century, it was the largest and possibly the most prosperous Jewish city in the world. By the early 20th century, Ottoman Jews —together with Armenian and Greeks— dominated commerce within the Empire.
Of course things weren’t perfect (we are talking about the 19th century here), but the Jewish people of Palestine or any other part of the Ottoman domain were not living under a brutal military occupation, subject to brutal medieval sieges, nor ethnically cleansed from their lands for no reason. In fact the Ottomans INVITED the recently ethnically cleansed Jews of Spain to settle in various Ottoman provinces including Palestine.
I think it can be said that when Muslims were in charge they treated their minority groups FAAAR better than when the Zionists came to be in charge.
Whatever the cause of their exodus the vast majority of Jews whose origins are in the Middle Eastern countries left under circumstances that left a distinct bitterness. Their support for right wing Israeli parties stems from that bitterness.
If all you had to do was gain the world’s approval that a one state solution is the best solution, then the burden of proof would be low. But to some extent some level of acceptance of this idea has to gain root in Israel for the idea to come to fruition. And then your level of proof is much higher.
Keep in mind WJ that it was AFTER the ethnic cleansing of Palestine that real anti-Jewish sentiment in the Middle East emerged.
Also, I’m not trying to argue that Ottoman rule or Islamic rule in general during the middle ages was some sort of utopia for the Jews.
Prior to that, there may have been squabbling, shit talking, murders here and there, but it was all on a personal level, not an ethnic level.
Finally Islam has a special place for Christians and Jews and other monotheists:
Qur’an 2:62:
Those who believe, and those who are Christians, and those whom are Jewish, and the Sabiens, and anyone else who believes in God and does good deeds, shall have their reward from their lord nor shall they grieve.
Jews, Christians, and Sabiens (Zoroastrians) were accorded a special status, as “Ahle-Kitab” (People of the Book). Meaning they were accorded special respect as they were followers of divine books and divine prophets according to the Islamic tradition.
Of course this does not mean that such high ideals were always upheld, but these ideals did and still do exist and were practiced rather consistently for quite a long time.
It was also AFTER several suspected (or confirmed) false flag attacks by Zionists on their fellow Jews in those Middle Eastern countries.
No, actually its widely accepted in Israel that the Mizrahi Jews support for right wing Israeli parties stem from the decades long mistreatment they received in Israel during the early years when the Labor Party dominated Israeli government and politics. While treated considerable better than their non-Jewish fellow Arabs, the Labor Party, controlled by Ashkenazi Jews, treated the Mizrahi as one or two steps lower then their fellow Ashkenazis.
Israeli Mizrahi author, Rachel Shabi:(“Not the Enemy: Israel’s Jews from Arab Lands”)
link to globalcomment.com
More illustration of my point here, from well-known neo-con Meyrav Wurmser, no less:
link to meforum.org
I don’t agree with all of Wurmser’s interpretations in her article, but even she notes that the rise of Likud was due to Mizrahi anger at Ashkenazi Labor Party rule.
James,
Talk is cheap, look how the Sabiens are treated in modern day Iran.
Its still a lot better than the way Israel treats its religious minorities.
And we are talking about Palestine, not Iran.
Or Christians even, for that matter. Crusades?
I beg to differ:
Arab Jews were not sent off to be gassed in specially built compounds in the mideast – like the convert-Jews of Europe had happen to them.
We can therefore safely say that Arab Jews co-existed in relative neighborly peace in the holy lands pre the zionist invasion.
Include also the Moslem protection of Jews in Spanish Europe as well as other places, and you have yourself a relative peace between these two half-brothers writ on the pages of history.
Look closer at Islam teachings and you find that it is forbidden to victimize the ‘people of the book’ by order of ‘god’ (whatever that means!)
The conflict was always about land and land-thieves. Yet so distorted, it has now become radicalized by the religions of both sides.
Perhaps you should see yourself more of a ‘wondering’ Jew, instead of the ‘wandering’ one. You may, small chance that is, find more facts before you.
The history of Jewish treatment in Muslim lands is certainly far superior than their treatment in Christian lands. This does not prove that they were well treated. (The Almohads did not treat the Jews well and the general history of Islamic treatment of the Jews is not without its blemishes.)
The Koran includes verses that serve tolerance towards the Jews. There are other verses that are not quite so kind. The verses that a Muslim will choose to adhere to vary according to the Muslim and the times.
WJ, there is a difference between the Quran higlighting the trangressions of the Jews in the past to serve as a lesson for the Muslims and Law (Jurisprudence). There is a difference between theology and Law. Although Islam is certainly not afraid to criticize Jews for certain actions and belief, Islamic Law (Shariah) prescribes that Jews (or any non-Muslims) under Muslim protection are due many rights, including the right to life, diginity, and property. Rights which Zionists seem to refuse to give to Gentiles. I leave you with a quote from Faraz Rabbani, a well known traditional Islamic scholar from Canada:
—————————————————————————————–
Rather, the Qur’anic paradigm of interaction with non-Muslims is that we maintain positive relations as principle, hold fast to fulfillment of rights, and strive uphold excellence in dealings. This was upheld by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in his dealings with non-Muslims–as manifest throughout his life, such as in his sending a close group of his companions to the Christian land of Abyssinia in migration; his including the Jews of Madina in the Medina Covenant; his own excellence in dealing with Christians, Jews, and the others, including the polytheists of Mecca, both before and after Islam’s strength was manifest.
Looking at the Prophet’s own example and teachings, the scholars mention that all the general calls to excellence in dealing in the Qur’an and the Sunna relate to dealing with both Muslims and non-Muslims. Thus, we are called upon to maintain our ties of family and friendship, and our relations with immediate even distant neighbors–whether Muslim or non-Muslim–with excellence.
It is in this spirit that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) is described by Allah Most High as having been sent only as a “Mercy to all Creation.” One of the key manifestations of mercy is excellence in conduct and dealings.
And it is in this spirit that that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) himself emphasized, “The merciful are shown mercy by the All-Merciful. Show mercy to those on earth, and the Lord of the Heavens will show mercy to you.” [Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi, on the authority of Amr ibn Dinar (Allah be pleased with him)] Traditionally, this has been the first hadith formally taught by a scholar to their student, and it has been contiguously transmitted in this manner.
This mercy is the spirit of the Islamic tradition–a spirit of excellence in character, conduct, dealings, and relations, with a firm commitment to justice and all that is good. It is only when some Muslims have veered in their understanding from our tradition that we see anger, intolerance, and ugliness replacing forebearance, tolerance, and beauty, to the loss of all and the good of none.
The Koran includes verses that serve tolerance towards the Jews. There are other verses that are not quite so kind. The verses that a Muslim will choose to adhere to vary according to the Muslim and the times.
Not quite WJ.
There are several verses in the Qur’an that extol Muslims to treat Jews with respect like the one I listed above:
Qur’an 2:62:
Those who believe, and those who are Christians, and those whom are Jewish, and the Sabiens, and anyone else who believes in God and does good deeds, shall have their reward from their lord nor shall they grieve.
There are however verses in the Qur’an that criticize the Hebrews under Moses for worshiping the Golden Calf instead of the “One God.” These criticisms of the Hebrew tribes are a far cry from criticism of Judaism or the Jewish people today whom claim descent from these tribes of yore.
Finally, much of the Qur’an focus’s on the story of the Prophet Moses and his Hebrew followers, and gives examples of piety, mercy, and also criticizes their actions from time to time (the golden calf example being a big one).
Of course Islamophobes latch onto these verses as proof of the innate Islamo-hatred of Jews by taking these verses out of their context, mistranslating them, and using them to suit their Islamophobic agenda.
(The Almohads did not treat the Jews well and the general history of Islamic treatment of the Jews is not without its blemishes.)
What you forget to mention is that the Almohads killed everyone, including other Muslims. They were extremists who sought to obtain caliphate in Cordoba for themselves and all the riches that came with it.
The truth is that Muslims and Jews in the Middle East have had a very fruitful relationship, often supported one another, and if anyone was really persecuted it was often the Muslims and Jews teaming up on the Christians.
Islamic persecution of the Jews was more of an anomaly than a constant.
Its still a subordinate position.
If that subordination is a crime in Israel/West Bank, why would you not hold the same standard for assessing the status of Jews in Israel/Palestine?
Wondering Jew is right–in their time the Muslim societies may have been more tolerant than, say, the Christian West, but they fall short by any decent modern standard. This is worth pointing out when arguing with modern day Islamophobes who pretend that Islam is inherently antisemitic, but at the same time I wouldn’t point to past treatment of Jews in Muslim countries as some sort of example for the present day. It was a subordinate position.
“I wouldn’t point to past treatment of Jews in Muslim countries as some sort of example for the present day.”
Although, to be clear, James Bradley wasn’t doing this–in fact, he specifically disclaims it. But I sometimes get the impression others might be leaning this way.
Donald,
I agree that this argument is helpful in refuting the claim that Islam is inherently anti-Semitic. Nevertheless I resent and reject the entire notion that Islam – or Muslims, to be more precise – are inherently intolerant and incapable of peaceful co-existence. This goes beyond the fact that history has clearly proven otherwise. Human beings are eminently capable of change and enlightenment (without necessarily renouncing religious belief or even religious law), and are not simply doomed to repeat previous patterns.
There is another aspect to all of this that bugs me, and that is that the argument of anti-Semitism in the Koran or Muslim religious tradition is used to characterise the thought and behaviour of all members of historically “Muslim” societies. Merely arguing that “Islam says this” or “has done that” (without even taking into account the fact that Islam itself is far from monolithic) is supposed to teach us something about the current and even future actions of all members of those societies – religious, secular, moderate, extremist or even non-Muslims. It strikes me as decidedly racist to presume to predict someone’s behaviour on the basis of a line of scripture he or his ancestors may have believed in to some extent or other, or certain attitudes espoused by members of his family, ethnic, religious or linguistic group, over a century ago.
Shmuel–
I agree with everything you say here. No time to say more at the moment.
Shmuel is right again. Do we search out the darker places in the Torah and the Bible — some of you know better than I where they are — and use them to characterize all Jews and Christians across all time, as though human beings are hard-wired to follow every tenet in their holy books? This is called Orientalism.
I cannot believe we have to go through this whole song and dance again of Zionists revising history by claiming that Muslims somehow had a history of oppressing Jews. Here I will post (yet again, it seems!) some quotes put together by Hamza Andreas Tzortzis to put these Islamophobic lies to rest:
————————————————————————————-
Heinrich Graetz, a 19th century Jewish historian expressed how Islamic rule in Spain favoured the Jews in the context of kindness and liberty of belief, “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…”
“….In Islamic history, where the cohesive values of Islam such as justice were propagated, the conclusions made by some historians are unparalleled, an Italian Rabbi, Obadiah Yareh Da Bertinoro, travelled to Jerusalem in 1486 CE and he wrote a letter to his father telling him about the country and its people under the Islamic Social Model, “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…”
The Jewish historian Amnon Cohen states that the Jewish minorities sought justice from the Islamic courts rather than their own, “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…”
The distribution of wealth and resources constitutes the macro-economy of the Islamic economic model; the Qur’an repeatedly mentions distribution of resources and charity. “Do good to the indigent till their economic imbalance is no more.”
“Feed the indigent, without wishing any return from them, not even a word of thanks.”
The famous letter from a Rabbi found in Phillip Mansel’s book ‘Constantinople’, reflects the Qur’anic reality of distributing resources, “Here in the land of the Turks we have nothing to complain of. We possess great fortunes; much gold and silver are in our hands. We are not oppressed with heavy taxes and our commerce is free and unhindered. Rich are the fruits of the earth. Everything is cheap and every one of us lives in peace and freedom…”
—————————————————————————————-
So please, my Zionists friends, lets not entertain these lies of Muslim intolerance of Jews any longer. I know that you wish to defend the status quo. It is understandble, even if it is unjust. But this type of historical revision strikes me not only similar to Holocaust denial but also as ungrateful.
So, stop it, if you please.
There isn’t a day I’m not thankful we have Palestinians participating on this blog. Thank you, Olive.
Thank you, Chaos. It really touches me to see non-Muslims coming to defend their fellow human beings for the sake of justice. Its easy to call for justice when the transgressors are weak but its not so easy to do it when your dealing with the I/P question, especially for someone live in the US.
When the Jews were expelled from Christian Spain, they came in large numbers to Muslim Istanbul, where they knew they would be welcomed with tolerance.
Isn’t this exactly what we are trying to avoid? Correct me if I am wrong but a once state solution would mean a Jewish majority between the Jordan to the Med Sea.
With Arab birth rates misreported and declining and Jewish rising I don’t see how the one state solution is helpful to us.
By ‘us’, do you mean the propagandists?
Cause it sure as hell sounds like it.
Arab birth rate is high and rising, my dear, in all sections of their society. Just google it for the stats.
Jewish birth rate is high ONLY in settler zealot Jewish communities, not amongst secular Jews.
Perhaps you’re in denial of the Arab demographic bomb huh.
I forgive you your intended ignorance, but it doesn’t serve your cause. It just makes you sound like an idiot who knows naught.
Not only that but secular and liberal/humanist Jews are actually emigrating away from Israel at this point. I mean, just ask Shmuel about that.
Yes Shmuel is a rare bird that fled the cage – for the right reasons.
Taxi, BSDNOW is most likely on your side, how is it productive to bash them for asking a question? Sounds a little like Hamas and Fatah to me, is compromise really that foreign to you all?
Just because someones technically on your side doesn’t mean you agree with everything they say Yonira. Kind of like how you don’t agree with the settlers right?
Justice is justice, and you should stand up for justice no matter what, even if people on your side are the impediment to justice.
Really? So which side did the Bush Administration pay to break unity, do you think, in this case, yonira?
Regardless of birth rates, one state for me represents equal rights and representation for all people in Israel/Palestine. If we have that, then at least we have the necessary base of a just system. And with greater Palestinian representation, even without a majority, it could only be harder for supremacists to violate their rights.
The goal is not the domination of “our” ethnic side, but universal justice. The problem is not with the idea, but in how to get there. Do I support one-state in the sense of Israel formalizing annexation and apartheid in the West Bank? No, but in a practical sense that would be the same thing as what currently exists anyway. And open declarations of its policies would only make Israel’s position less tenable.
BSDNOW – What does BSD stand for? Is it the same as BDS (boycott, divestment sanctions)? Just curious.
I think it’s a reference to the family of Unix-based operating systems.
“Isn’t this exactly what we are trying to avoid? Correct me if I am wrong but a once state solution would mean a Jewish majority between the Jordan to the Med Sea.
With Arab birth rates misreported and declining and Jewish rising I don’t see how the one state solution is helpful to us.”
Who is this “us”? I don’t know what the majority of Palestinians want, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they also want a state where their group is in the majority, which is obviously what Israeli Jews want. So be it, if that’s how they want to think. Then they can go for the two state solution. It can be a monument to intolerance , until or unless both sides outgrow it.
But in my more utopian moods, if I were to favor a one state solution it would be one where ethnicity didn’t matter.
The Israelis don’t seem so eager for a one state solution, so either they aren’t so confident of having a majority or they just don’t want to live in a country with so many Arab citizens, even if less than 50 percent.
C’mon, the Likkud faction of israeli leadership – which has been in charge for quite a long time now – intends to only escalate their terror against the Palestinians and to drive them out bit-by-bit or create some other false flag operation as a pretext to do it en masse … and the demographic bomb already exploding in slow motion is the infiltration within the israeli military and political class of the extremist settler terrorists … israel has completely abandoned any move toward a 2-state or 2-state solution that involves co-existing on the same land with the Palestinians who were there before the zionist hordes descended. Just talk to any wild-eyed settler under age 30 (the scariest ones are under 20) and see the bloodlust in their eyes and the murder they plan.
I can’t remember who said this, I believe it was Chaos, but the best thing Israel could get was some sort of Middle East conflagration from which they could finally get an excuse to finish the Palestinian question once and for all.
Just like they took advantage of 1948 to expel even more Palestinians, and then did so again in 1967, another big war would give them the opportunity and the cover to push out a few hundred thousand if not million more.
I cannot take credit for that, although I find it hard to contest the sentiment — Israel waves one Muslim boogeyman after another for its “allies” in the West to chase after. And I do think pressure is building to force outright war between the US and Iran in order to get that excuse.
The setup for war with Iran is being erected; only a dozen congressional reps voted against Iran sanctions, cutting off gas imports to Iran. Kucinich and Paul
eloquently laid out in considerable detail why this new legislation will harm us.
But Berman et al got their way. PNAC is still the agenda.
I’ve never argued that it was the “best thing Israel could get” but I definitely think it is an idea that has occurred to most of the Israeli political establishment. How could it not? There is no other way to make an Arab-rein Israel from the Mediterranean to the Jordan. Gradualist or creeping ethnic cleansing has proven effective in shifting Palestinians around within the Occupied Territories, i.e. from East Jerusalem, but it has failed to move them outof Palestine. Achievement of the latter objective will take a punctuated ethnic cleansing event more monstrous than the 1948 Nakba.
I hypothesize that setting the stage for, or preconditioning the social, political, military, and media environment for, a second Nakba is one of the goals of American neocons’ notion of ‘creative destruction’. They need a regional war where Israel can be spun as the innocent victim under attack fighting to prevent its people from being massacred by the ‘new Nazis’, and to whom forgiveness should be extended for any extraordinary measures they take to ‘protect’ themselves, and in which to whip the IDF and Israeli people into war fever frantic enough to carry it out.
It sounds outlandish because it is. I’m just asserting that it’s what the pro-colonization Eretz Yisrael crowd want, not that it is in any way likely or feasible.
why did you capitalize Likud?
The next war is referred to as ‘The Great Broom’ in Lebanon:
It will sweep Palestine clean for once and for all.
And yes they do have their ‘broom’ ready.
They’re just waiting for the right ‘wind conditions’.
Oh I’m sure Israel will give them those conditions, soon enough. And I doubt that Lebanon will be alone when Israel strikes the match that lights the powder keg.
The Lebs know how ‘predictable’ the zios are – pre-emptive strikes on civilian populations etc. They don’t care if they go it alone or not. Just look at what Lebanon alone managed to do in 2006. Granted they took a mighty thrashing from the Israelis. But wow – that thrashing only improved their resolve and performance.
And you’re right, Chaos. The next one coming, they won’t be fighting alone against the zios.
I actually met people there who were rubbing their hands together in glad anticipation of the event – and they weren’t religious zealots, they were bikini-clad ladies relaxing on the beach!
That worked out great for Lebanon w/ their cross border antics in 2006.
“That worked out great for Lebanon w/ their cross border antics in 2006. ”
As opposed to Israel’s cross border antics before, during and after 2006?
And here’s more, Witty. It was never intended that the Jews were expected to take over Palestine. This was the official US government position from the Paris Peace Conference. Our government’s position, not a group of people calling themselves Zionists. Our government.
”Recommendations of the King-Crane Commission with regard to Syria-Palestine and Iraq (August 29, 1919)“
I’m getting a bit bored by the constant attacks by the regulars here on Richard Witty.
Maybe he’s the only hasbara here. And maybe his pronouncements are totally incomprehensible, but those are no reasons to block up a comment stream by attacking him.
You are making the comments on this blog into a personal vendetta, and demeaning the blog by doing so.
Seriously? This comment coming from the guy who tosses around the n-word casually and goes on and on about mythical FEMA concentration camps?