Ilan Pappe weighs in on One State

Israel/PalestineMiddle East
on 27 Comments

This is part of Marc H. Ellis’s “Exile and the Prophetic” feature for Mondoweiss. To read the entire series visit the archive page.

The One State/Two State debate has ignited again with Ian Lustick’s, “Two State Illusion” in the Sunday New York Times.  Ilan Pappe has also weighed in on the subject in his essay, “The Two State Solution Died Over a Decade Ago.” [link]

Of the two, I would chose Pappe’s – with a caveat.  The Two State solution hasn’t actually been on the table since the 1967 war.  That’s going on fifty years.

What’s important is the future.  While serving up American-size rhetoric on the dangers facing Israel/Palestine in the years ahead, Lustick is weak on what it would take to reach his goal of expanding justice and security for Jews and Palestinians.  Pappe is more direct but he, too, comes up against the disturbing reality that no one from within the Middle East or outside of it has the answer to the urgent question:  How can Palestinian freedom be implemented?

The current Egyptian and Syrian situation model how the impasse in Israel/Palestine is being handled.  With regard to Egypt, America, along with Europe, Russia, China and the international community at large, has accepted martial law and the repression of the Muslim Brotherhood and Left of center dissidents as necessary for a stable Middle East.  In Syria, the deal America and Russia brokered a few days ago accepts the Assad government as the organizing framework for national stability.  Egypt and Syria signal containment as the policy of choice.   Justice is bartered for stability.

The present peace process follows this containment policy.  Though containment represents a continuation of past policies toward Palestinians, it is now intensified and adjusted for regional instability in the aftermath of the Arab Spring.

Containment allows Israel to keep everything it has taken in Jerusalem and the West Bank – with more to come.  The Palestinians need to get something out of containment, too, if not for their future, at least so the policy can be maintained in an effective manner.  Historically, Palestinians were able to destabilize the Middle East region.  In the present, the Palestinian threat to destabilize has lessened dramatically.  Thus the peace process offer to Palestinians isn’t more land or a real state – on the negotiating table is less of both.  Rather the offer is limited to the promise of more international assistance, employment projects and an enhanced economy.

Yet the warning bells continue to sound on the future of Israel/Palestine.  Palestinians can’t live forever under an increasingly dispiriting occupation.  Israel’s victory has stretched its resources thin; the instability in the Middle East can cut for and against Israel. Lustick understands the dangers ahead but he remains on the fence; he thinks catastrophe can be averted by Israeli and Palestinians citizens realizing their joint interests outside of the national identities they’ve heretofore assumed as defining.   While there’s some hope in this sensibility, the idea that the Israel/Palestine divide will be overcome outside of inherited national identities is difficult to imagine.

One of the arguments Lustick alludes to is that the borders of Israel and Palestine are blurred.  Israel has an internationally recognized border – which it doesn’t adhere to.  Palestine has an international border-in-waiting – which it can’t assume control of.  Lustick’s mixing and matching of the One State/Two State solution comes partially from this geographic and identity interweaving of Israelis and Palestinians.  This includes more than a million Palestinians within Israel’s internationally recognized border.

While Lustick is an American political scientist, Pappe is an Israeli historian.  Of the two, Pappe is more convinced that only one democratic, secular state of Israel/Palestine will suffice for the future of Jews and Palestinians.  Pappe isn’t a fence sitter.  He is direct.  Nonetheless, there are issues Pappe is unable to resolve.   He begins with the counter forces to present Israeli hegemony:

There are no political parties of any significance in Israel that offer to change this reality. There is no real Western plan to stop the solidification of this one state on the ground, let alone offer a viable alternative to it in seriousness. Factors such as the fragmentation on the Palestinian side, the disintegration of the Arab nation states around Israel and a continued unconditional American support to Israel, all act as a buffer that cushions the Israeli Jewish public from any potential threats to their new enlarged, racist, but economically viable state.

What is Pappe left with if state-actor politics can’t do the job?

 

The moral validity of this new geo-political enlarged state of Israel has been eroded significantly since the successful Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign by Palestinian civil society began few years ago. Israel’s own actions have contributed to the state’s further de-legitimisation in the eyes of the civil societies around the world.

The past struggle in the West against South Africa’s apartheid regime shows that intentional rejection of a regime’s legitimacy is a bottom up process, and this may still happen to the new, enlarged state of Israel. The role of Palestine’s friends world-wide has therefore not changed and this is to continue with the same commitment and vigour to pressure their governments to sanction this new regime for its criminal policies.

One state is Pappe’s answer.  If not, catastrophe lies ahead:

 

The strategy for the people inside has also not changed much. The sooner they realise that they cannot struggle any more for an independent Palestine inside the ‘Palestinian space’, the better. They could instead concentrate on uniting the Palestinian front and strategising a struggle plan, together with progressive Israelis, for a regime change in this new one state that was established in 2001. There is an urgent need for a new strategy to reformulate the relationship between Jews and Palestinians in the land of Israel and Palestine.

The only reasonable regime for this seems to be one democratic state for all. If this is not going to happen, the storm on Israel’s borders will gather with even bigger force than hitherto. Everywhere in the Arab world, people and movements are seeking ways of changing regimes and oppressive political realities – surely this will also reach the new enlarged Israel; if not today, then tomorrow. The Israelis may occupy the best deck on the Titanic, but the ship is nonetheless sinking.

 

Pappe’s direction ends in indirection.  Pappe features mutual Israeli and Palestinian solidarity as a primary strength precisely because the national and international actors are weak – at least in their intentions toward Jews and Palestinians.  Perhaps he has no other choice.  But if his rhetoric is hopeful, Pappe seems already behind the regional and international curve.  Right now the Middle East future is less about movements for changing regimes and oppressive political realities and more about state actors consolidating their power.

Pappe’s appeal to the Titanic is historical and literary – shall we say musical?  But nation sinking is dangerous and not only for Israel and its majority Jewish population.  In the case of a catastrophe visited upon Israel, what will happen to Palestinians?  The likelihood of Palestinians escaping Israel’s sinking without devastating them is slim.

It seems everyone believes that the collapse of Israel is in the near future and automatically assumes that collapse is in the best interests of Palestinians.  This assumption needs probing.  It’s as likely that the Egyptian and Syrian model of containing Palestinian freedom would be imposed either by the Palestinian leadership that emerges in the wake of the collapse or, perhaps more likely, by outside powers in the Middle East (in consort with that Palestinian leadership) whose self-interest is to control Palestine.

Is it possible that countries like Egypt and Jordan – with assistance from Saudi Arabia – might step in to help Israel in its time of need?  Don’t laugh.  Israel is part of the security network in the Middle East.  If you think that it’s only America – or Europe – that has a vested interest in Israel surviving and thriving, you haven’t been paying attention to the aftermath of the Arab Spring.

Both Lustick and Pappe seek to avoid collapse by envisioning a consciousness that averts the catastrophe in the making.  Their consciousness-raising arguments are politically weak.  It’s unlikely that any Middle East actor will force Israel to its knees.  Politically we have to assume that Israel isn’t going to collapse and that a Palestinian state is still-born.   We also have to assume that, whatever the arguments in its favor, Israeli Jews, in consort with Jews around the world and the powers that be in the international system, are not going to voluntarily or through the use of force promote or demand one democratic and secular state for Jews and Palestinians.

 

 

About Marc H. Ellis

Marc H. Ellis is retired Director and Professor of Jewish Studies at Baylor University and author of The Heartbeat of the Prophetic which can be found at Amazon and www.newdiasporabooks.com

Other posts by .


Posted In:

27 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    September 17, 2013, 1:07 pm

    I don’t imagine anyone who follows the I/P conflict has any doubt about what the shape of the “answer” is. But many social forces prevent people from stating the obvious. The “answer” is obvious, it is simple, and it is hard to achieve.

    The answer to the I/P conundrum is easy to know, but hard to describe within the censorship-laden media in which it would most usefully need to be described. Moreover, the people who should be describing this answer are prisoners of their own desires to be seen as “players” and as “realistic” or “moderate”. What needs to be said cannot (now, and for the long moment which began in 1947) be said within the Mainstream media of the USA. Socially-imposed censorship effectively prevents it.

    OK, I am not and never have been a “player” or a “moderate” and do not aspire to be so. I will not “go along” for some spurious benefit of “get along”. And MondoWeiss is not part of MSM.

    ANALYSIS:

    The status quo (in I/P) is a single undemocratic state run in apartheid style and which some call “Israel” and others call “Israel and the occupied territories”. Israel will not change this arrangement — and thus will give way neither to become two states nor to become a single democratic state — unless and until some quite significant outside pressure is brought to bear on Israel. And the USA works constantly and diligently to prevent even the slightest outside pressure from being brought against Israel. For example, SoS Kerry has recently urged the EU to suspend even its puny, nearly-symbolic BDS-like policy for boycotting certain Israeli institutions with ties to the OPTs.

    Ian Lustick didn’t say this, though it is plain as the nose on anyone’s face. I would think Ilan Pappe would say it, but I have not read his article.

  2. marc b.
    September 17, 2013, 1:14 pm

    Is it possible that countries like Egypt and Jordan – with assistance from Saudi Arabia – might step in to help Israel in its time of need? Don’t laugh. Israel is part of the security network in the Middle East. If you think that it’s only America – or Europe – that has a vested interest in Israel surviving and thriving, you haven’t been paying attention to the aftermath of the Arab Spring.

    and are Jordan/SA/gulf states immune the effects of the ‘Arab Spring’. increasingly aggressive and overt assistance from SA to Israel, for example, will not be welcome by many.

  3. Citizen
    September 17, 2013, 1:50 pm

    Seems to me, China, India, and Brazil, given their druthers, all support the Palestinian cause. And Russia? And even the EU has tepidly stepped a foot into BDS. What third world country doesn’t support the Palestinian cause? Last time the Palestinian cause came up at the UN SC only USA stood with Israel with its veto. Obama would’ve received a dose of his own veto medicine if his Syria strike went there–from Putin, at least. Can the status quo re I-P linger on for yet another decade with the US bearing the burden in behalf Israel?

  4. breakingthesilence
    September 17, 2013, 2:20 pm

    Here is how a one-state solution comes about: A rhetorical shift from progressives is the essential first step. That means having the courage to say in public and to say at every opportunity that a) the State of Israel has no moral legitimacy because every inch of that land was stolen from its rightful owners, the Palestinian people. That is to say all of “Israel” is occupied Palestine. And b) to say always and everywhere that the state of Israel is thoroughly racist and not a democracy except for the Jews—who stole that Palestinian homeland. Only when those truths, absolutely obvious and well-documented truths, become a central part of the popular and media discourse in the United States (and to a lesser extent in colonialist Western Europe as well) will politicians—our senators, congress people and President—be forced to discuss the only genuine (and obvious) solution: a single democratic state with full right of return and citizenship for the expelled Palestinians and their offspring and then democratic elections. If all goes well the task might be accomplished within 7 or 15 years. In the South African model the transformation could only take place when all the powerful states, necessarily including the U.S., demanded it. But for that to happen in occupied Palestine, the discourse in the U.S. is the first thing that must change. If we are too afraid to say outright that Israel stole another people’s homeland and ethnically cleansed that people in 1948 and ’67, then we will make very little if any real progress. We must start telling the full truth. That will change the discourse and eventually will lead to the necessary systemic change in occupied Palestine.

  5. American
    September 17, 2013, 2:33 pm

    “”Right now the Middle East future is less about movements for changing regimes and oppressive political realities and more about state actors consolidating their power.””

    That is true right now…BUT…..the Ruling State Actors efforts to hold their power is also “consolidating” the various powers, as in example Egypt and Saudi, as in example Saud, Turkey,Israel vr Syria-Iran.
    The “Movements” be they Secular, be they MB, be they Shiite minorities against Sunni rule and so forth is what moved the ruling state actors to action and created some strange bedfellows.
    Imo, the more the ruling forces act to wipe out the movements the more movements they will create
    And like the ruling state actors joining forces on a case by case basis, so can and will the movements.
    Someone has to ’totally lose’ in each and every case for any of it to end.
    Until then, Welcome to Chaos and all kinds of switching horses in mid stream as the ’powers’ try to take out all the varied and different movements that threaten them.

  6. James Canning
    September 17, 2013, 2:39 pm

    I think most of the international community sees the Green Line as Israel’s border with Palestine.

  7. American
    September 17, 2013, 3:04 pm

    ‘Is it possible that countries like Egypt and Jordan – with assistance from Saudi Arabia – might step in to help Israel in its time of need? Don’t laugh. Israel is part of the security network in the Middle East. If you think that it’s only America – or Europe – that has a vested interest in Israel surviving and thriving, you haven’t been paying attention to the aftermath of the Arab Spring.”…….marc

    Would some Arab countries step in to help Israel in it’s hour of need?
    Sure, right up to the second any Israel quid pro quo cooperation on a common problem was of no further use to them and any Israel US attachment was no longer a threat to them.
    I am not Arab but I have a pretty good idea of how frustrated chained up dog would act when finally set free.
    Once the Arab rulers had taken care of all other threats they would also remove the 65 yr old Israel insult and thorn in their royal paw.
    Israel is of no value to any ‘ME Security Network’, it provides no security even to itself, it has always had to be backed up the US and will always have to be backed up and fed by the US to have any power.
    If the US ever parts ways with Israel you can say good-bye to a Jewish State, Arabia will dominate, if not actually destroy, it then.

    • Walid
      September 17, 2013, 3:40 pm

      “Is it possible that countries like Egypt and Jordan – with assistance from Saudi Arabia – might step in to help Israel in its time of need? ”

      Isn’t it happening now with Hamas and Gaza?

      • American
        September 17, 2013, 4:55 pm

        Walid says:
        September 17, 2013 at 3:40 pm

        “Is it possible that countries like Egypt and Jordan – with assistance from Saudi Arabia – might step in to help Israel in its time of need? ”

        Isn’t it happening now with Hamas and Gaza? >>>>>

        A temporary alliance .
        Do you actually think Egypt is putting down Hamas and Gaza just because they want to help Israel?
        No, there is something in it for Egypt and/or whoever’s behest or favor
        –other than Israel’s—they are acting for.

        I said before and still think it’s possible Egypt’s actions toward Hamas and Gaza now could be Saudi inspired ( by way of the US) for the purposes of removing Hamas influence/demands/ holdout on a I/P settlement as a way to push some kind of settlement to a final close wth Abbas. I/P being another major thorn in the Saudi paw among their subjects and the Arab Street Springs they want to quell.

  8. seafoid
    September 17, 2013, 4:06 pm

    “new enlarged, racist, but economically viable state”

    I wonder how socially viable Israel will be 20 years from now.
    “Economically viable” is the weakness. Nobody in Europe actually needs Israeli exports. The diamond market doesn’t need Israel.
    Sanctions would work wonders on complacent Israelis. And they are probably inevitable the way things are going.

  9. just
    September 17, 2013, 5:56 pm

    Speaking of water:

    “Over 500 academics, including researchers from 13 European Union member states, have today written to the EU’s head of Foreign Policy, urging the EU not to water down its new guidelines preventing EU funding from being awarded to Israeli projects and entities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (download letter with list of signatories here).

    The “Letter by academic researchers to the EU regarding the participation of Israeli settlements in EU research programs” has been organised by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP) and its French sister organisation the Association des Universitaires pour le Respect du Droit International en Palestine (AURDIP).

    The EU recently announced new guidelines that should prevent Israeli universities, companies and projects based in settlements from receiving EU funding. This important policy change is the result of grassroots campaigning across Europe, including a letter to the EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton signed by 250 academics from across Europe last year.

    The intention of the guidelines is to ensure that the EU’s own institutions respect the obligation not to recognize Israeli sovereignty in the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, including the Palestinian West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip as well as the Syrian Golan Heights.

    Michael Deas, Coordinator in Europe for the Palestinian Boycott National Committee (BNC), explained:

    “These guidelines show that grassroots civil society pressure is forcing the European Union to acknowledge its legal responsibility to not recognize Israel’s regime of occupation, colonization and apartheid against the Palestinian people and to end some aspects of its deep complicity in maintaining this illegal and criminal system.”

    The new guidelines have been welcomed by students and conscientious academics in Palestine and Europe who have been campaigning against EU-funded joint projects between European universities and illegal settlement companies such as cosmetics firm Ahava.Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories Ltd, whose factory is located in the illegal Mitzpe Shalem settlement in the occupied West Bank, has participated in five projects under the current Framework Programme 7 (FP7), and is even the co-ordinator of two of them. These projects have a total value of €36,033,269, of which the EU has contributed €25,245,718.

    Now Palestine solidarity organisations fear that Israel and the US are applying pressure on the EU to drop the new guidelines, or to water them down to the point where they become meaningless, ahead of negotiations on Israel’s participation in the upcoming Horizon 2020 EU research funding program. John Kerry has called for the guidelines to be dropped and a US official has claimed that there is an “openness” to this request among EU officials. The intensive round of talks between the EU and the Israelis about Israel’s participation in the Horizon 2020 programme opens this Thursday September 12th.

    The letter is addressed to Baroness Ashton in her capacity as High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.It says, “As academic researchers, many of whom have been in receipt of EU research funding, we call upon the EU to implement its new guidelines in full and to ensure that projects, companies and institutions located in illegal Israeli settlements are not eligible for EU research funding.”

    Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, Chair of BRICUP, said “Just when we thought that the EU was going to live up to its international human rights responsibilities, it seems they are in danger of going weak at the knees again. How can they even contemplate funding Israeli activities taking place over the Green Line in illegal settlements? A measure of the outrage that this has provoked is the fact that in less than 2 days signatures to this letter have flooded in from over 500 academics.””

    http://iranian.com/posts/view/post/20939

    another link: http://www.bdsmovement.net/2013/500-academics-eu-letter-11329

  10. Keith
    September 17, 2013, 7:10 pm

    MARC ELLIS- “Don’t laugh. Israel is part of the security network in the Middle East.”

    Indeed, all of the US allies are linked through various security arrangements in which NATO figures prominently. Yes, NATO, which Clinton helped to transform into a global imperial expeditionary force of unprecedented size and scope. A transnational military to enforce the policy of the transnational empire. Rick Rozoff comments:

    “The Partners Across the Globe and longer-standing military partnerships are slated to grow in all parts of the world. Among the more than 50 nations that have provided NATO with troop contingents for the war in South Asia are additional Asia-Pacific states not covered by other international NATO partnership formats like the Partnership for Peace (22 nations in Europe, the South Caucasus and Central Asia), the Mediterranean Dialogue (seven nations in North Africa and the Middle East, with Libya to be the eighth) and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, which targets the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates).” (Rick Rozoff)
    http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/rick-rozoff-NATO-has-become-global-expeditionary-force/#more-144684

    “I sincerely doubt there are a dozen nations in the world, out of 194 members of the United Nations currently, that dare pursue an independent foreign policy, including explicitly, in an expressly in military manner, are not tied to the Pentagon’s evolving and expanding international military nexus.” (Rick Rozoff)
    http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/rick-rozoff-u-s-attack-on-syria-may-cause-world-war-iii/#more-150162

  11. Keith
    September 17, 2013, 7:35 pm

    MARC ELLIS- “Politically we have to assume that Israel isn’t going to collapse and that a Palestinian state is still-born. We also have to assume that, whatever the arguments in its favor, Israeli Jews, in consort with Jews around the world and the powers that be in the international system, are not going to voluntarily or through the use of force promote or demand one democratic and secular state for Jews and Palestinians.”

    Realistically, the status quo is unlikely to change until after the great neoliberal global transformation either succeeds or fails. A struggle is underway to lock-in Western control of the transnational neofeudal empire being imposed. The stakes are immense, and the Masters of the Universe are not going to be diverted from their primary objectives. Due to the power and influence of American Zionist Jews, Israel plays a larger role than would otherwise be the case. The “Lobby” is as much an imperial lobby as an Israeli lobby, the support of a militarized empire being crucial to Israeli ambitions.

    That the present course of actions is likely to lead to an environmental and social collapse and possibly nuclear war seems not to have noticeably figured in the geostrategic calculations. Pity.

  12. talknic
    September 17, 2013, 10:53 pm

    Uh? A blind eye and the US veto might be the payoff for being part of the security network but there is actual no need for Israel to usurp the Palestinians from non-Israeli territory in order to be part of the security network in the Middle East.

    The Zionist organization’s henchmen were busy dispossessing non-Jews long before the US started favoring Israel

  13. Mike_Konrad
    September 17, 2013, 11:37 pm

    I have emailed Ilan Pappe, who answers emails wonderfully. He is a gentleman of the first order.

    I agree with many of his historical observations. I think there was deliberate ethnic cleansing. I think Pappe’s critics slander him.

    Where I disagree with Dr. Pappe is that I do not think the One State Solution is viable.

    I think both sides are in this for the long haul with the eradication of the other side as the long term desired goal.

    The underlying drive to both claims is religious. Like it or not. This is not France nor Germany fighting over Alsace-Lorraine. Classic Orthodox Judaism requires a temple. Islam will not stand for one of its holy sites (faux or not) to be in infidel hands.

    One cannot be both a Muslim and a Jew. It is one or the other.

    There are Jews who believe in Christ, called Messianic Jews or Jews for Jesus. Though denied by classic rabbis, one can in theory be a Jew and a Christian because Jews and Christians share basic roots. They disagree over the Messiah and the nature of the deity (Monadic or Triune) but still have the same deity.

    But one cannot be a Muslim and a Jew. They are exclusive.

    Likewise, either Israel or Palestine will exist. One or the other.

    People here criticize me for suggesting that Israel should pay the Palestinians to leave – I get flak from both sides for this suggestion – but it is the most humane solution.

    The alternative, alas, is World War.

    • Annie Robbins
      September 17, 2013, 11:57 pm

      I think both sides are in this for the long haul with the eradication of the other side as the long term desired goal….. This is not France nor Germany fighting over Alsace-Lorraine. Classic Orthodox Judaism requires a temple.

      yeah but where does it say in judaism they get their temple by wiping out the others? isn’t it settled in orthodox judaism that god builds the temple? so what’s the hurry/worry? if it’s up to god, either one has faith god will do it, or not.

      besides, if god came down and build the temple i am sure all believers of every faith would recognize him. and just because jews want the land w/no palestinians don’t assume others are like that. after all jews lived there for centuries as a minority without the others wiping them out. you’re just covering for zionist’s ethnic cleansing by claiming others have the same desires. palestinians can live there as equals, with equal rights, you just don’t want to try democracy. you’re a scaredy cat.

      • Shmuel
        September 18, 2013, 1:56 am

        besides, if god came down and build the temple i am sure all believers of every faith would recognize him.

        That’s the plan. See Isaiah 2.

      • RoHa
        September 18, 2013, 2:46 am

        “i am sure all believers of every faith would recognize him.”

        How? Most believers (as well as non-believers like me) have never met him before. We have no photographs, no fingerprints, no DNA to check him against. What ID does he have?

        He could be anyone.

      • Shmuel
        September 18, 2013, 3:43 am

        How? Most believers (as well as non-believers like me) have never met him before.

        “‘Ye shall recognise Me by My impeccable grammar (and capitalisation of certain pronouns)’, saith the Lord.”

      • RoHa
        September 18, 2013, 6:27 am

        Now that would be pretty persuasive.

    • Ellen
      September 18, 2013, 12:43 am

      Mike, you say, “I think both sides are in this for the long haul with the eradication of the other side as the long term desired goal.”

      No, No, No! Sure there are some nuts who want others to be gone somehow (i.e. paying them to leave and if not, through genocidal methods if that does not work.) But most do not really care as long as they have their peace and quiet.

      Then you say. “The underlying drive to both claims is religious. Like it or not.” Again, No, no No! Most do not care who and how others pray….or not. They want to get on with their lives. Religion is used — and has been for a very long time — to create a common identifier against the “other.” It is and always will be about enterprise, resources, manifest destiny and stuff like that.

      Those who believe this is about religion are the Muppet puppets of the interests pulling the strings.

      Besides, most or many Palestinians are not very religious. Zionism is not religious at all.

    • tree
      September 18, 2013, 3:32 am

      There are Jews who believe in Christ, called Messianic Jews or Jews for Jesus. Though denied by classic rabbis, one can in theory be a Jew and a Christian because Jews and Christians share basic roots. They disagree over the Messiah and the nature of the deity (Monadic or Triune) but still have the same deity.

      Mike, all three religions have the same deity. Allah is God. G-d is Allah. Islam considers Jews and Christians to be “People of the Book” and not “infidels”. There’s more disagreement between Christianity and Judaism than there is between Islam and Judaism. Judaism does not recognize Jesus as an aspect of God, and so to worship him is to commit idolatry. Christianity considers Jesus an aspect of God, so to renounce his holiness is to renounce God. That’s the big difference. Islam considers Jesus a prophet like Mohammed and Moses, not a God. All three religions coexisted relatively peacefully in the Holy Land prior to Europeans bringing their racism and colonialism into Palestine. They could do so again.

  14. W.Jones
    September 18, 2013, 1:11 am

    Good last paragraph, Marc.

    Yes. Be realistic about the situation.

    It’s not going to change unless there is some serious transformation of power in the world or in the ME. NATO is busy bombing and clandestinely “conflicting” the ME back into the stone ages.

    The Western Crusader states lasted what, 200 years in the Middle East? The Israeli State has been there for over 60, so we might be almost 1/3 of the way there, although conditions are different and things could end up or last differently too.

  15. southernobserver
    September 18, 2013, 2:03 am

    So what about the Christians, atheists and other religions?

  16. W.Jones
    September 19, 2013, 8:42 pm

    Do people think that Judaism itself is one of the motivations of support for the nationalist state system both there and among its supporters in America because much of it focuses on the historic existence of a religious political state there, with Christian Zionism being the Christian counterpart?

    (Rabbinical traditions notwithstanding)

Leave a Reply