Glib, simplistic, and extreme — the world according to Richard Landes

Israel/Palestine
on 132 Comments

 

Richard Landes

Richard Landes

Richard A. Landes is an associate professor of history at Boston University.  He is an expert on millennial movements and honor-shame culture. He is also a conspiracy theorist who believes that the killing of Mohammad Al-Durrah was staged by Palestinians and sold to a gullible mainstream media all too ready to promote an ongoing blood libel against Israel. He is a key contributor to the documentary “The J-Street Challenge,” which is currently making the pro-Israel propaganda rounds.  His BU webpage says that, among other things, he is chronicling “the astonishingly foolish behavior of intellectual and policy elites in the response to global jihad.” 

Tablet Magazine has been featuring Landes’ article “Why the Arab World Is Lost in an Emotional Nakba, and How We Keep It There.” The article focuses on how this “foolishness” relates to Israel. “By ignoring the honor-shame dynamic in Arab political culture,” asks a sub-heading, “is the West keeping itself from making headway toward peace?”  The question is rhetorical.

With his credentials, Landes should not be taken lightly despite his partisan positioning.  All the same there is something unsettlingly glib and extreme in his analysis at Tablet. It all starts innocently enough.  The article asserts that warrior-nomadic cultures (read Arab Islam) have specific honor codes, the violation of which brings debilitating shame.  He relates how in such cultures the failure to avenge a killing is so shameful that it cannot be lived down.  He contrasts this with a 1000-year transition in Western Greek culture from a “shame culture” (honoring fame and reputation above all) to a “guilt culture” (marked by an internal conscience and a fear of divine retribution) underpinning our liberal democracies.

One might note that after the religious wars in western culture from the crusades through the Peace of Westphalia, and the disasters of the 20th Century, not least of which was the Shoah, there is reason to question whether this transition of western culture from an honor culture to a guilt culture has been such an unmitigated blessing.  [If you like this kind of thing, take a look at the efforts of two philosophy professors setting about to resurrect aspects of Homerian culture in their book “All Things Shining.”] Landes, however, seems to be clear that because Arab culture has not undergone this transition—don’t try to reason with them.

Here is the heart of his thesis:

For the 13 centuries before Zionism, Jews had been subject to a political status in Muslim lands specifically designed around issues of honor (to Muslims) and shame (to Jews). Jews were dhimmi, “protected” from Muslim violence by their acceptance of daily public degradation and legal inferiority. …So, the prospect of an independent state of should-be dhimmis struck Arab leaders as more than humiliating. It endangered all Islam. Thus Rahman Azzam Pasha, the head of the newly formed Arab League, spoke for his “honor group” when he threatened that “if the Zionists dare establish a state, the massacres we would unleash would dwarf anything which Genghis Khan and Hitler perpetrated.” As the Armenians had discovered a generation earlier, the mere suspicion of rebellion could engender massacres.

The loss in 1948, therefore, constituted the most catastrophic possible outcome for this honor-group ….To fall to people so low on the scale that it is dishonorable even to fight them—nothing could be more devastating. …. Arab pride called out to the Arab world for vengeance against the Jews. In the meantime, wherever Muslims held power, they drove their Jews out as a preliminary act of revenge.

And what conclusions does Landes draw?

The Arab leadership’s interpretation of honor had them responding to the loss of their own hard zero-sum game—we’re going to massacre them—by adopting a negative-sum strategy. Damaging the Israeli “other” became paramount, no matter how much that effort might hurt Arabs, especially Palestinians. “No recognition, no negotiations, no peace.” No Israel. Sooner leave millions of Muslims under Jewish rule than negotiate a solution. Sooner die than live humiliated. Sooner commit suicide to kill Jews than make peace with them. …

Many post-Orientalists, in the tradition of Edward Saïd [sic], have predicted the outbreak of democracy any decade now, from the 1990s to the “Arab Spring.” Thus, while Yasser Arafat’s “no” at Camp David shocked Bill Clinton, Dennis Ross, and a public fed on the idea of a win-win peace process, those familiar with the values of Arafat’s primary honor-group predicted that rejection.….

[E]xperts… explained why a reasonable Arafat had to say no. Of course, to make Arafat rational meant blaming the Israelis for the failure of negotiations and for the subsequent explosion of violence against them. When Cherie Blair expressed her understanding for the despair of suicide bombers, she projected her liberal world view on people who actually aspire to the highest honor their society can offer: martyrdom in the war to kill the Jews. …

The policy implications here are grave. The “rational” model assumes that the ’67 borders (’49 armistice lines) are the key and that an Israeli withdrawal will satisfy rational Palestinian demands, resolving the conflict. Attention to honor-shame culture, however, suggests that such a retreat would trigger greater aggression in the drive for true Palestinian honor….

Israelis’ future depends on their ability to understand why their neighbors hate them and what can and won’t work in trying to deal with their hostility. … As anyone paying attention knows, the Salafi-Jihadis, who have “hijacked” Islam the world over, embody this self-same honor-shame mentality in its harshest form: the existential drama of humiliate or be humiliated, rule or be ruled, exterminate or be exterminated. Dar al Islam must conquer dar al Harb; independent infidels (harbis) must be spectacularly brought low, their women raped; Islam must dominate the world … or vanish.

…[C]ulture is not a superficial question of manners. In the Middle East, honor is identity. Appeasement and concessions are signs of weakness: When practiced by one’s own leaders, they produce riots of protest, by one’s enemy, renewed aggression. …. And too few wonder whether basic logic of the negotiations—land for peace—has any purchase on the cultural realities of this corner of the globe. If only Israel would be more reasonable …

When we indulge Arab (and jihadi Muslims’) concerns for honor by backing off anything that they claim offends them, we think that our generosity and restraint will somehow move extremists to more rational behavior. Instead, we end up muzzling ourselves and thereby participating in, honoring, and confirming their most belligerent attitudes toward the “other.” They get to lead with their glass chin, while we, thinking we work for peace, end up confirming and weaponizing the Arab world’s most toxic weaknesses—their insecurity, their embrace of all-or-nothing conflicts, their addiction to revenge, their paranoid scapegoating, their shame-driven hatred. And there is nothing generous, rational, or progressive about that.

Whew!

There is certainly nothing wrong with engaging in honor-shame scholarship.  One can’t begin to think about honor killings without examining honor and shame dynamics in Muslim culture. Studying transformations from ancient Greek shame culture (“fame and reputation”) towards conscience and fear of divine retribution (Christianity?) may well be fruitful and informative for understanding Muslim extremist culture.  To suggest that anyone thinks otherwise is a straw man.

On the other hand, for Landes to suggest that an honor-shame culture necessarily means that Palestinians will, therefore, never accept Israel and that they will always hate and want to rape, pillage, and destroy…and don’t even think about land for peace or easing up on the harshness of the occupation… is to engage in a fantasy rationalization of a pretty simplistic sort.

The discussion of “dhimmi” is advanced by Landes without a trace of acknowledgment that it describes the dynamic of the Israeli occupation to a tee.  It’s dhimmi them or dhimmi us, so let’s dhimmi them!  If that’s the only choice, then let’s abandon this project already.  Similarly, the allegation of Arafat “shocking” Clinton with his rejection is presented without the faintest concession to subtlety (see link).

Landes is using “shame and honor” to tap into our revulsion at ISIS, at abominations like honor killings, and he is doing this to justify a brutal occupation with visions of a new holocaust. But ISIS is not Ramallah.  And what about China and Japan?  Don’t they have a shame and honor culture? Didn’t Japan make peace after World War II and become one of the world’s top economies?  Are Palestinians human beings you can make peace with?  Read  Pamela Olson.

As Landes’s participation in the hit piece on J-Street, and his propagation of conspiracy propaganda on the Mohammad Al-Durra killing suggest, this is not scholarship, it is rationalization to justify an unacceptable status quo.

About Roland Nikles

Roland Nikles is a Bay Area writer and attorney. He blogs here: rolandnikles.blogspot.com. And you can follow him on twitter @RolandNikles

Other posts by .


Posted In:

132 Responses

  1. Donald
    June 29, 2014, 12:04 pm

    The people who squawk the most about the superiority of the West over the Muslims are nearly always the people whose thinking most closely resembles that of a jihadist. They talk a lot about Western rationality, but it’s a thin veneer for their own version of tribalism.

  2. traintosiberia
    June 29, 2014, 12:08 pm

    The argument of Landes is no different from that of G Bush- they hate us for our freedom.

  3. a blah chick
    June 29, 2014, 12:08 pm

    “It’s dhimmi them or dhimmi us, so let’s dhimmi them!”

    There was a opinion piece up at Haaretz where the writer made the same argument: the Jews must be in control because if they are not the Arabs will take over and kill them.

    And if Arabs are so bloody minded why were there plenty of Jews there able to immigrate?

  4. just
    June 29, 2014, 12:12 pm

    Richard Landes is a raving and rabid Islamophobe.

    as all of you probably know: ” He coined the term “Pallywood” for what he considers the practice of “staged filming” of “evidence” against Israel for the benefit of the Palestinians. ” (wiki)

    That is all.

    • Giles
      June 29, 2014, 12:27 pm

      My God these people are so sick. And dangerous.

      They are living in the 15th century.

  5. a blah chick
    June 29, 2014, 12:14 pm

    Okay, everybody, retread this paragraph again, with only minor changes:

    “When we indulge Israelis (and settlers’s) concerns for honor by backing off anything that they claim offends them, we think that our generosity and restraint will somehow move extremists to more rational behavior. Instead, we end up muzzling ourselves and thereby participating in, honoring, and confirming their most belligerent attitudes toward the “other.” They get to lead with their glass chin, while we, thinking we work for peace, end up confirming and weaponizing the Israeli world’s most toxic weaknesses—their insecurity, their embrace of all-or-nothing conflicts, their addiction to revenge, their paranoid scapegoating, their shame-driven hatred. And there is nothing generous, rational, or progressive about that.”

    Maybe he is on to something.

    • bilal a
      June 29, 2014, 6:02 pm

      amazing weird parody of freudian projection

    • DaBakr
      June 29, 2014, 6:44 pm

      take out “shame-driven”[it just doesnt apply] and “hatred” [as you should know-Israelis consistently poll as having very little or no hatred at all for Palestinians and Arabs in general-unless you want to conclude we’re just lying] and leaving everything else…I would agree, you have something. Its not a bad point at all.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 29, 2014, 10:38 pm

        as you should know-Israelis consistently poll as having very little or no hatred at all for Palestinians

        ah yes, one of the most popular pro israel hasbara talking pt is how their enemies are full of hatred and we’re to believe they are free of it? we’re to believe israelis have very little or no hatred at all for Palestinians.

        i’ll believe they’re free of hatred when those who represent them quit accusing others of it and quit drumming it down our throats non stop. one cannot be a merchant of hatred (landes and ilk) and claim one is free of it at the same time. selling the idea of others hatred, i’d ask how can you even recognize it is it’s not in your heart already?

    • Susan A
      June 29, 2014, 10:09 pm

      Quite! Projection: that’s just what I thought when I read that last paragraph. Thanks for that Roland, I couldn’t stomach reading his whole article.

      More commonly used projection:

      “They want to push us into the sea.” “They want to wipe us off the map.” Hasn’t that already happened to “them”?

  6. Pat Nguyen
    June 29, 2014, 12:15 pm

    When the Palestinians are ready for 2 states for 2 people, they shall have their sovereignty. Until then, status quo

    • just
      June 29, 2014, 2:03 pm

      Uh, no.

      Who are you to issue this bs edict?

    • Ron Edwards
      June 29, 2014, 2:12 pm

      Why did this post under the byline of Pat Nguyen pass moderation? It is rank racism, drawing upon the notion that a “people” is “ready,” or not, for some social program or responsibility. This notion is pulled straight from the imperial playbooks of the past three centuries and is socially and politically rotten to the core.

      • just
        June 29, 2014, 2:25 pm

        Redolent of John Wayne here:

        “With a lot of blacks, there’s quite a bit of resentment along with their dissent, and possibly rightfully so. But we can’t all of a sudden get down on our knees and turn everything over to the leadership of the blacks. I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people.”

        Interesting eh? One of our “heroes” in a 1971 Playboy interview:

        https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Wild_Wild_Cold_War/files/2011/11/John_Wayne_Playboy_Int2.pdf

      • MHughes976
        June 29, 2014, 2:28 pm

        These ‘Palestinians not ready for peace’ ideas, along with the suggestions that the Palestinians should immediately accept anything proposed, are another form of Nakba-trivialisation of which we certainly encounter too much even here on Mondoweiss.
        Not that anything is proposed, not that there is anything on the table.

      • Kay24
        June 29, 2014, 7:06 pm

        Honestly, to hear the way they try to portray Palestinians, and constantly blame THEM for not wanting peace, and not cooperating (oh yes, the Obama administration indicated in many ways, exactly WHO was not cooperating this time), anyone would think occupied people simply enjoy, and LOVE to live under a miserable military occupation, have their lands stolen, water controlled, live day to day with snipers pointed at them, and going through checkpoints for hours, is a blast. The zionists keep thinking we are all naive enough to buy that.

      • RoHa
        June 29, 2014, 8:06 pm

        Being a paternalistic imperialist, I have already said that I do not believe the Arabs are ready for democracy. I have said the same about the British and the Americans*. I have also said that the only way to get ready is to keep trying it.

        The same principle will probably apply to peace.

        (*Everyone knows that the Australians are ready for anything.)

      • Annie Robbins
        June 29, 2014, 10:20 pm

        Why did this post under the byline of Pat Nguyen pass moderation?

        i have no idea.

    • eljay
      June 29, 2014, 2:27 pm

      >> When the Palestinians are ready for 2 states for 2 people, they shall have their sovereignty.

      The Palestinians are ready for Israel and Palestine. The problem lies with Zio-supremacists like you who can’t stand the thought of your state:
      – ending its ON-GOING occupation and colonization of Palestine (i.e., of what-is-not-Israel);
      – withdrawing to within its / Partition borders;
      – honouring its obligations under international law; and
      – being a secular and democratic Israeli state – a state of and for all Israeli citizens, immigrants, ex-pats and refugees, equally.

    • Hostage
      June 29, 2014, 5:23 pm

      When the Palestinians are ready for 2 states for 2 people, they shall have their sovereignty. Until then, status quo

      The international community of states and the UN have already recognized the Palestinian state, which includes the entitlement to juridical equality and sovereign equality. Israel was granted recognition of its sovereignty at a time when illegal Jewish militias, that were incorporated into the IDF, were clearly engaged in rampant acts of self-confessed terrorism. In addition, the Israels refused to adopt the customary minority rights protections that were a requirement for termination of a mandate regime, thus proving their own unreadiness for self-government under the classic western imperial criteria which applied to such cases.

      FYI, the UN abolished and prohibited the practice of denying independence to peoples on the basis of allegations regarding the population’s level of civilization at the same time it prohibited apartheid and colonialism in the 1960s, i.e. see the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, Adopted by General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960. link to un.org and the Convention on the Elimination of All Racial Discrimination, adopted by the General Assembly on 21 December 1965 by resolution 2106 (XX). link to legal.un.org So maintaining the status quo is a punishable criminal offense.

    • Shingo
      June 29, 2014, 5:42 pm

      When the Palestinians are ready for 2 states for 2 people, they shall have their sovereignty.

      Pay forgot to provide the following definitions.

      “Ready” – the complete submission to the will of Israel

      “2 states for 2 prople” – the state for Jews bring 99% of Palestine. The state for Palestinians will be the size of a postage stamp and will be disarmed, subjugated, denied control of all air , jabs and sea access much less access to water or any resources.

      • W.Jones
        June 29, 2014, 6:37 pm

        Shingo,

        You are exaggerating with your postage stamp talk, but the “stamp” reflects the minimalist ideas about Palestinian sovereignty. When you read Herzl’s writing, Palestinians are hardly in his vision of the new State.

        Israeli nationalists have no problem with that.

        Their view of the right ideal situation is one where Palestinians are marginalised. And how do you marginalize a huge population but by giving them second class status?

      • Hostage
        June 29, 2014, 11:17 pm

        W. Jones responding to you here once again. In the interview Citizen C linked to, Chomsky says about sanctions: Sanctions hurt the population. You don’t impose them unless the population is asking for them. So the first point in the case of Israel is that: Is the population asking for it? Well, obviously not.

        Why was it “obvious” that the population of the Israeli State was not asking for sanctions? Because Palestinians only make up 20% of the population. Since the remainder of the Israeli population are overwhelmingly Israeli nationalists, Chomsky demands that the nationalists demand the BDS campaign before he will accept it.

        Once again CitizenC didn’t link to the interview, I did, because he was being dishonest when he claimed Chomsky said anything at all about obtaining the consent of Israeli Jews. You are showing extremely bad faith by repeating that false allegation again and responding to comments that already answered your hypothetical question. But since you asked, the Palestinian Citizens of Israel were not calling for sanctions at the time of the Chomsky interview. There wasn’t even a Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) until 2007 or a call to action in 2004 when the interview took place.

        During the 2001 Durban Conference, when other Palestinians were calling for sanctions to end the occupation and colonization of the OPt, the Durbin Declaration portrayed the problems of the Palestinian citizens of Israel as a civil matter and there was no mention of sanctions in that connection from groups like Adallah or Mossawa:

        325. The Palestinian Citizens of Israel should be recognized as a distinct national minority group based on Article 27 of the ICCPR. We call for the implementation of the recommendations and concluding comments regarding Israel issued by UN Human Rights treaty or Charter based bodies such as the CESCR, the Human Rights Committee and the Commission on human rights, which emphasized the Palestinian citizens’ collective rights regarding lands, absentee property, uprooted villages and the unrecognized villages.

        http://www.adalah.org/eng/intladvocacy/ngoforumdecl.htm

        The head of the Adalah delegation said later that they were censored by the Arab group and that:

        We were not able to talk about ourselves as Palestinian citizens of Israel facing racial discrimination because such a discourse is regarded as an essentially civil discourse, while the conflict was not civil in nature but radical and existential. And so we nullified ourselves, our self, our uniqueness, in order to be a part of the consensus and the Islamic grouping.

        http://adalah.org/upfiles/2011/Hassan%27s%20Al%20Hayat%20Article%20about%20Durban%20October%202001%20English.pdf

        In fact, the December 2006 report on “The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel”, by “The National Committee for the Heads of
        the Arab Local Authorities in Israel” there is no mention at all of BDS or sanctions. http://electronicintifada.net/content/future-vision-palestinian-arabs-israel/3054

        The only related reference is a complaint about a virtual Arab cultural boycott of Palestinian Arabs in Israel:

        The issue of the Palestinian Arab in Israel culture continuity to the Arab world is ambiguous due to the disconnection from the mother culture in our homeland. It mounts sometimes to the extent of Arab boycott on our culture or discard of its status and refusal to acknowledging its confrontational position in the front line of the anti-Arab thought ideology.

        http://adalah.org/newsletter/eng/dec06/tasawor-mostaqbali.pdf

        So there was no identity of views or love lost between Palestinian Israelis and other Arab groups who either ignored or were hostile to them. As I noted earlier, we’ve long since crossed that threshold. The government of Israel made it a civil offense to call for a boycott, because a sufficient number of Palestinian Israeli parties, organizations, academics, and individuals working together with like minded non-Palestinian Israeli academics, organizations and individuals have subsequently endorsed or called for sanctions. In the interview Chomsky also said that sanctions should be applied to the US, because without its support, it would be over. He also supports the work of Palestinian Israelis, like Haneen Zoabi, as a member of the Advisory Board of the Israeli Occupation Archive http://www.israeli-occupation.org/about/status/

        If Palestinians were rioting, as you said, over Ali A’s father making peace between the Israeli State and Jordan, it is hard to think that they would not be in favor of BDS.

        You are making my point for me. I said there were riots in the occupied territories and refugee camps located outside of Jordan. I never said anything about riots in Israel.

      • Hostage
        June 30, 2014, 2:43 am

        But if Ali A is now advocating BDS to help the right of return, then on the question of seeking the right of return, Ali A is in keeping with those refugees’ opinions. Thus, we don’t find a chasm between them on this question of the right of return.

        Ali A attacks everyone else for giving up the right of return and hypocritically gives his father a free pass. Ali A’s father, Hasan Abu Nimah, is a regular contributor to EI. http://electronicintifada.net/people/hasan-abu-nimah It looks like we are just expected to forget that he said the same thing as Chomsky using different words. He concluded a treaty that falsely claimed the right of return couldn’t be addressed or resolved between Jordan and Israel on a bilateral basis. Who pray tell is standing in the way of these two states, which govern the bulk of the Palestine refugees?

        See Article 8 of the treaty between Jordan and Israel for the double talk, dissimulation, and circumlocutions (but no mention of the right of return). http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/peace_6-15.html

        Article 8 – Refugees and Displaced Persons

        Recognizing the massive human problems caused to both Parties by the conflict in the Middle East, as well as the contribution made by them towards the alleviation of human suffering, the parties will seek to further alleviate those problems arising on a bilateral level.
        1. Recognizing that the above human problems caused by the conflict in the Middle East cannot be fully resolved on the bilateral level, the Parties will seek to resolve them in appropriate forums, in accordance with international law, including the following:

        A. In the case of displaced persons, in a quadripartite committee together with Egypt and the Palestinians;

        B. In the case of refugees,
        (i) In the framework of the Multilateral Working Group on Refugees;
        (ii) In negotiations, in a framework to be agreed, bilateral or otherwise, in conjunction with and at the same time as the permanent status negotiations pertaining to the Territories referred to in Article 3 of this Treaty;

        C. Through the implementation of agreed United Nations programs and other agreed international economic programs concerning refugees and displaced persons, including assistance to their settlement.

        Why shouldn’t we be boycotting Jordan and demanding that it take actions? I’m just curious

      • Hostage
        June 30, 2014, 3:25 am

        No, there were many times that it took steps without relying on the US government. The Nakba was one of them. The US government did not participate to the extent that without it, the Nakba would not have occurred. At that point in time, while the US was supporting the State at the UN, it was not supporting it actively every step of the way.

        Pull your head out. We know from the minutes of the People’s Council minutes that Ben Gurion left the question of borders open to developments, but said he would abide by the UN resolution if it was enforced. The UN Security Council refused to take action on the General Assembly recommendation that it treat any attempt to alter the partition plan by force as a threat to international peace and security. At the same time, Dean Rusk’s USUN delegation memos indicate that Truman had already ruled out any intervention against the Jews in March, e,g. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad167.asp The French, British, Belgian, and US delegations knew perfectly well after US Consul Watson’s reports of massacres in March and April, that the Jewish militias were engaged in ethnic cleansing and that they were the aggressors. Rusk’s only worry was that there would be domestic pressure from within the US to attack the Arabs! The only US reaction was to wait another month and let the slaughter continue while hoping that Transjordan and Israel might conclude a unofficial modus vivendi and partition Palestine between themselves on a de facto basis:

        Memorandum by the Director of the Office of United Nations Affairs (Rusk) to the Under Secretary of State (Lovett)
        SECRET [WASHINGTON,] May 4, 1948:

        Military operations after May 15 will probably be undertaken by
        the Haganah with the assistance of the Jewish terrorist organizations Irgun and Stern. Copies of Consul General Wasson’s excellent reports, as set forth in his telegram 530 of May 3, are attached, and provide the estimate of the British General Officer Commanding as to the probable course of military events after British withdrawal on May 15.

        If these predictions come true. we shall find ourselves in the UN
        confronted by a very anomalous situation. The Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership. The question which will confront the Security Council in scarcely ten days’ time will be whether Jewish armed attack on Arab communities in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council. The situation may be made more difficult and less clear-cut if, as is probable, Arab armies from outside Palestine cross the frontier to aid their disorganized and demoralized brethren who will be the objects of Jewish attack. In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside Palestine which is the cause of Arab counter-attack.

        There will be a decided effort, given this eventuality, that the United States will be called upon by elements inside this country to support Security Council action against the Arab states. To take such action would seem to me to be morally indefensible while, from the aspect of our relations with the Middle East and of our broad security aspects in that region, it would be almost fatal to pit forces of the United States and possibly Russia against the governments of the Arab world.

        Given this almost intolerable situation, the wisest course of action might be for the United States and Great Britain, with the assistance of France, to undertake immediate diplomatic action seeking to work out a modus vivendi between Abdullah of Transjordan and the Jewish Agency. This modus vivendi would call for, in effect, a de facto partition of Palestine along the lines traced by Sir Arthur Creech Jones in his remark to Ambassador Parodi on May 2, as indicated on Page 3 of USUN’s telegram [549], May 2, which has been drawn to your attention.

        By July, the League of Arab States were alarmed by Israel’s large scale arms acquisitions and resulting strengthened position during the cease fire and they resumed hostilities. The UN Security Council finally declared the situation a threat to international peace and security, but the US prevented any adverse sanctions against Israel.

        The internal memo was published in the Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa , Volume V, Part 2, page 848. Analysis of the memo is contained in “The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951”, William Roger Louis, Oxford University Press, 1984, ISBN: 0198229607, page 545; Zionism and the Palestinians, Simha Flapan, Croom Helm, 1979, ISBN: 0856644994, Page 336; and Fallen pillars: U.S. policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945, Donald Neff, 2nd Edition, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1995, ISBN: 0887282598, page 65.

      • W.Jones
        June 30, 2014, 2:31 pm

        Dear Hostage,

        The BDS campaign began to develop in 2002 in response to an Israeli crackdown. It quickly grew to represent a majority of Palestinian Civil Society.

        In Belgium:

        At the high point of the campaign in November 2003, over 50 local groups participated in actions at the entrance gates of supermarkets and collected over 10,000 signatures against the sale of Israeli products
        http://www.badil.org/en/al-majdal/item/83-bds-in-belgium

        PACBI issued its Call for an Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel in Ramallah in 2004

        On July 9 2005, a year after the International Court of Justice’s historic advisory opinion on the illegality of Israel’s Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), a clear majority of Palestinian civil society [170 organizations] called upon their counterparts and people of conscience all over the world to launch broad boycotts, implement divestment initiatives, and to demand sanctions against Israel, until Palestinian rights are recognised in full compliance with international law.

        http://www.sjpsdsu.com/bds.html

        Chomsky on the other hand said in the interview that you should not enact BDS on the Israeli State if its population disagrees with it. Since only 20% of Israelis are Palestinian, those would not be the Israelis whom Chomsky is talking about.

        You countered that Palestinians were not asking for BDS in 2004, however even if they were it would not matter, because they are not very representative of the Israeli population. That’s why Chomsky said it is “obvious” that the Israeli population is not asking for BDS. Because the population is not Palestinian. Otherwise, you could argue that most Palestinians wanted BDS but were not asking for it openly for fear of repression, and thus it would not be “obvious” that Palestinians did not want BDS.

        Even in 2004 it was not “obvious” that Palestinians in particular did not want BDS, because in fact many of them sympathized with it, as shown by the call being made public the next year.

        We have discussed Chomsky’s condemnation of the BDS human rights campaign as (1) “pure antisemitism”, as (2) seeking to “destroy” the Israeli State, as (3) hypocritical to “high heavens” — all because things are supposedly “a hundred times worse… anyplace else”, over four article threads. I kindly invite you to discuss Chomsky’s attacks further on the Mondoweiss Friendfeed: https://friendfeed.com/mondoweiss-on-friendfeed

      • W.Jones
        June 30, 2014, 2:51 pm

        Dear Hostage,

        I wrote that

        there were many times that it took steps without relying on the US government. The Nakba was one of them.

        You replied by saying “pull your head out”. Shouldn’t you and I be working in support of Palestinians’ rights and talk to eachother with decency?

        Your explanation was that Ben Gurion was not going to violate the UN partition borders if he believed that they were enforced, and that the US knew about the Nakba and failed to intervene, which allowed it to occur.

        That is true, but nonetheless, the US failure to intervene on the Arabs’ behalf does not count as the Israelis relying on the US for support for their actions. The Nakba goes against the idea that if it wasn’t for the US then the Israelis would not commit their vast abuses.

        In fact, were the US out of the picture in 1948, the Israelis would still have carried out the Nakba. And the US did not support the Nakba, despite the fact that it failed to intervene.

        If a person sees another person get attacked, it does not mean that the witness supported the attack or the abuser relied on the witness, or that if the witness were not there that the attack would not occur.

        I invite you to continue this discussion, which we began on another thread, onto the Mondoweiss Friendfeed: https://friendfeed.com/mondoweiss-on-friendfeed

        Regards.

      • Hostage
        June 30, 2014, 7:23 pm

        The BDS campaign began to develop in 2002 in response to an Israeli crackdown. It quickly grew to represent a majority of Palestinian Civil Society.

        You still aren’t discussing a call for a boycott of Israel from Palestinian Israelis with the aim of securing equal rights for themselves. Even in 2004 when PACBI was founded it’s agenda was based upon ending the occupation. Likewise, the International Academic Boycott platform endorsed by Badil targeted the occupation. See footnote 1 http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=1107

        People who claim that Omar Barghouti’s needs and wishes about participation in the academic boycott need to be consulted, shouldn’t object when Chomsky notes that we should wait for the other victims to request that we boycott their country. You haven’t provided any evidence to support the idea that Chomsky was speaking out of turn in 2004 or that he meant to say that Zionist perpetrators of human rights violations have to consent before they can be targeted with sanctions. That is simply not what he said.

        FYI, there were calls for sanctions from NGOs at the Durban Conference in 2001. You are trying to imply that the 2005 Call for action endorsing boycotts, divestment, and sanctions in support of Palestinian citizens of Israel was already in effect at the time of the 2004 Chomsky interview and that Palestinian Israelis had already widely endorsed it. That was simply not the case.

      • W.Jones
        June 30, 2014, 11:14 pm

        Dear Hostage,
        You wrote:

        You still aren’t discussing a call for a boycott of Israel from Palestinian Israelis with the aim of securing equal rights for themselves. Even in 2004 when PACBI was founded it’s agenda was based upon ending the occupation.

        First, Chomsky’s criterion that you shouldn’t sanction a country if its population disagrees with sanctions doesn’t have much to do with what Palestinians think, since 0% of Israelis are non-Palestinian.

        Second, if it did matter then Yes, Palestinian Israelis were not “obviously” against BDS, since in 2005 Palestinian Israeli organizations like the Arab Association for Human Rights, Nazareth and the Jadid society of Haifa supported it. It doesn’t matter whether they objected to the occupation or all inequality when it comes to Chomsky’s criterion, since he simply said that you should not sanction a population if it disagrees with the sanction. And it would not be “obvious” that Palestinian Israelis disagreed with sanctions (they don’t), only that the Israeli immigrants would. Thus, when he says that it’s “obvious”, he is referring to the Israeli population as a whole. He did not say “the victimized part of the population”, but “the population”.

        You wrote:

        You haven’t provided any evidence to support the idea that Chomsky… meant to say that Zionist perpetrators of human rights violations have to consent before they can be targeted with sanctions. That is simply not what he said.

        Chomsky said:

        Sanctions hurt the population. You don’t impose them unless the population is asking for them. So the first point in the case of Israel is that: Is the population asking for it? Well, obviously not.

        What percent of the Israeli population would you consider to be advocates of Israeli nationalism? If they are most of “the population”, then a sizable number of them must consent in order for the state to be sanctioned under Chomsky’s criterion.

        You are trying to imply that the 2005 Call for action endorsing boycotts, divestment, and sanctions in support of Palestinian citizens of Israel was already in effect at the time of the 2004 Chomsky interview and that Palestinian Israelis had already widely endorsed it.

        The call began in 2001-2002 (you mentioned a 2001 Durban conference) and it quickly grew until by 2005 it was publicly and officially endorsed by 170 Palestinian organizations. But based on the timeline of that growth, in 2004 it already had wide sympathy across Palestinian society.

        I know that BDS is not the same thing as the Arab League Boycott, but if Palestinians sympathized with the latter, they would by nature also sympathize with the former. All things considered, Palestinians sympathized with BDS even in 2004.

        Since the conversation about Chomsky’s attack has already ran across four comment threads, I kindly welcome you to discuss it on Friendfeed:
        https://friendfeed.com/mondoweiss-on-friendfeed

      • Naftush
        June 30, 2014, 2:11 am

        Pat indeed provided no definition. Here is one: willingness to sign on finality of claims. This is anathema to Palestinian leaderships of whatever nature. They declare their intent to use any accord attained for the continued prosecution of a multifaceted conflict with their neighbor and negotiating partner. Forget for the moment that said neighbor is the J… er, Zionist entity. Your country wouldn’t stand for it either, nor should it.

      • Hostage
        June 30, 2014, 2:35 pm

        Here is one: willingness to sign on finality of claims. This is anathema to Palestinian leaderships of whatever nature.

        It’s a same that you aren’t better informed. You need to read something beside the Hasbara Fellowship talking points:

        Peace with Israel would end Palestinian land claims, says Mahmoud Abbas: Palestinian president makes apparent move to reassure Israelis after expressing frustration at talks’ lack of progress http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/peace-israel-palestinian-land-abbas

      • James Canning
        June 30, 2014, 2:37 pm

        Bravo. Israel can have peace and great wealth within its pre-1967 borders. Some tweaks in that border may be possible.

      • Shingo
        July 1, 2014, 6:43 am

        Pat indeed provided no definition. Here is one: willingness to sign on finality of claims.

        Israel is not willing to do that either, because it would mean a finality to it’s land theft.

        This is anathema to Israel leaderships of whatever nature. Obama himself found out that he would have more luck getting blood from a stone that getting Netanyahu to reveal his plan – and we know why – because he doesn’t have one and he doesn’t have one because he has no desire to see an end to the conflict.

        They declare their intent to use any accord attained for the continued expansion of Israeli settlements.

        Another hasbara fail!!

    • DaBakr
      June 29, 2014, 6:53 pm

      seems to me the Palestinians know quite well what they want and what they are ready for. status quo does have an expiration date. but nobody can rely on any ‘final status’ until the region as a whole settles down.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 29, 2014, 10:33 pm

        but nobody can rely on any ‘final status’ until the region as a whole settles down.

        which is why it is in the interest of expansionist ‘land of israel’ zionists to make sure it never does. ending the occupation will help settle down the region as a whole.

  7. ahadhaadam
    June 29, 2014, 12:27 pm

    This is the latest gospel from Zionists as to why there is no “peace”. It’s the Arabs, their culture, their savagery, dhimmi, etc. – nothing about the colonial nature of Israel, its 100 year dispossession and ethnic cleansing drive, its Jewish supremacist ideology, its policy of apartheid. One can easily envisage the same arguments used against blacks in S. Africa to explain the entire African continent’s rejection of the apartheid regime.

    • DaBakr
      June 29, 2014, 7:01 pm

      you can protest everything except for the “dhimmitude”. I don’t know hpw you can deny that part of Arab/Muslim culture. Even if you can compare some of the so-called 2nd-hand status of Christian and Muslim Israelis as being equal to ‘dhimmitude’ how could you expect Israeli Jews to willingly submit themselves to living in a society that would subject them to 2nd hand status as well? Better Israelis continue to try and improve their treatment of all Israelis then simply abdicate sovereignty after 60+ yrs. Obviously you would not agree to this decidedly Zionist position but I can’t think of any other example in the past 150 yrs where a militarily superior nation would relinquish sovereignty-either actual or practical. THIS is the “lastest” gospel AFAIK from Zionist and not the racist bs ‘thinking’ of some Zionists, that you charge above, that holds any real sway amongst reasonable Jews. When that issue is answered I think there would be a lot more movement towards a treaty. But what I see is more polarization and movement away from treaties which is too bad

      • eljay
        June 29, 2014, 10:47 pm

        >> DaBakr: you can protest everything except for the “dhimmitude” …

        I’ve never understood why some people think dhimmi status is a good thing. “You pay us a special tax and we’ll guarantee you a second-class status!”

        >> … how could you expect Israeli Jews to willingly submit themselves to living in a society that would subject them to 2nd hand status as well?

        I expect Israeli Jews to live in a society as equals with Israeli non-Jews. Zio-supremacists, however, can’t stomach the thought of equality between Jews and non-Jews in a supremacist “Jewish State”.

        >> Better Israelis continue to try and improve their treatment of all Israelis then simply abdicate sovereignty after 60+ yrs.

        Improve the treatment of all Israelis as Israelis, and not as citizens of a supremacist “Jewish State” that places Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews above non-Jewish Israelis? I agree.

        And maybe while they’re at it, Israelis can also get their state to:
        – halt its 60+ years and ON-GOING occupation and colonization of Palestine;
        – withdraw to within its / Partition borders;
        – honour its obligations under international law; and
        – accept responsibility and accountability for its past and ON-GOING (war) crimes; and
        – enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.

        IOW, the sort of stuff one imagines a “moral beacon” among nations would not hesitate to do.

      • Hostage
        June 30, 2014, 12:54 am

        you can protest everything except for the “dhimmitude”. I don’t know hpw you can deny that part of Arab/Muslim culture.

        It hasn’t been part of their culture since the 19th century:

        But these imposts, the kharaj on the land and the djizyah on the person of a non-moslem, were once for all abolished by virtue of the Hatti-Sharif of Gul-Haneh of 1839 and of the Hatti-Hamayun of 1856. In the earlier of these two charters, the Sultan sought to secure for the provinces of the Ottoman Empire the benefits of good government by the introduction of new institutions that were to bear chiefly upon the three following heads: (1) The guaranties for insuring to his subjects perfect security as to their life, their honor, and their fortune: (2) A regular method for the assessment and collection of taxes; and (3) an equally regular method for the levying of soldiers and the duration of their service.

        How the second of these three objects was to be attained the Hatti-Sharif determined by further ordaining that—
        Thenceforth every member of Ottoman society should be taxed for a proportional part of the impost, to be reckoned on the basis of his fortune and his abilities, and that beyond this no thing could be exacted of him.
        And the charter of 1856 further decreed that: The taxes that are exigible from all our subjects shall be collected under the same designation without distinction of class or creed.

        — Report of Edward A. Van Dyck: Upon the Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire Since the Year 1150, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1881, page 6 http://books.google.com/books?id=P3UDAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA6#v=onepage&q&f=false

        Ottoman government and Court records indicate that it wasn’t unusual for upper and middle class Jewish dhimmis to own Christian and Muslim slaves and concubines. But you don’t hear the Zionists complaining about any of those inconvenient historical facts. See for example Yaron Ben-Naeh, “Blond, tall, with honey-colored eyes: Jewish ownership of slaves in the Ottoman Empire.” Jewish History 20.3-4 (2006): 315-332. link to pluto.huji.ac.il

      • Naftush
        June 30, 2014, 2:21 am

        Cherry picking. The Ottoman empire was rotting from within and shedding its very sovereignty in various domains. Visit Iran and Northern Africa at the time and see dhimmitude in full blossom.

      • Hostage
        June 30, 2014, 2:21 pm

        Cherry picking. The Ottoman empire was rotting from within and shedding its very sovereignty in various domains. Visit Iran and Northern Africa at the time and see dhimmitude in full blossom

        I’m not cherrypicking, I’m citing actual studies about Jewish life in Ottoman Palestine. You were talking about dhimmitude being an integral part of Arab culture, and now you are talking about Persians and Africans. Neither Iran nor Northern Africa were under Arab rule at the time or amounted to a reflection of unadulterated Arab culture. In fact, the rotting process you talked about was mostly attributable to western powers who were busy setting-up their own protectorates in all those places using treaties and recognition of trucial states.

      • Shingo
        July 1, 2014, 6:42 am

        Visit Iran and Northern Africa at the time and see dhimmitude in full blossom.

        Rubbish. I have visited Iran and I know for a fact you are lying.

        Carry on.

  8. Walid
    June 29, 2014, 1:04 pm

    Landes giving a talk to the vultures at Herzliya where they gather each year to discuss innovative ways of oppressing the Palestinians says it all. All that follows is detail and all those that participate or have participated at Herzliya, like Saeb Erekat, Salim Fayad, Prince Hasan of Jordan show their true colours towards Palestinians.

    All this hocus-pocus about Arab honor, shame and the rest of the spiel is pure bullshit and recycled garbage from the 70s and 80s proposed by the late Raphael Patai, a Hungarian Jew. Americans hooked on Patai (and here Landes is repeating the exact same bullshit) is what brought them to commit the atrocities at Abu Ghraib and that has kept them continuing to make wrong calls in dealing with the Arabs.

    As to more of Landes’ bullshit about what’s making ISIS tick, he’s out to lunch as these terrorists are in it because they are frustrated religious fanatics that are cutting people’s hands and heads to get a ticket to heaven, not to regain any lost honor.

    If honor and shame would have been at the root of it, you wouldn’t have over 3/4 the Arab states currently eating out of Israel’s hand.

    • a blah chick
      June 29, 2014, 1:16 pm

      “Americans hooked on Patai (and here Landes is repeating the exact same bullshit) is what brought them to commit the atrocities at Abu Ghraib”

      I did not see the movie but didn’t “Zero Dark Thirty” show this same dynamic in the interrogation/torture sessions?

    • bintbiba
      June 29, 2014, 1:33 pm

      Thank you , Walid , for sticking around and being on the lookout for and responding so knowledgeably to such bs nonsense. You impress me no end…although I say it for the 1st time!

      • Walid
        June 29, 2014, 3:00 pm

        Thanks, bintbiba. Distressing news out of Mosul tonight, 2 nuns and 3 kids from their orphanage have been abducted by ISIS. Chances of coming out of this alive for the nuns is zero. How does Landes’ honor theory explain this?

    • DaBakr
      June 29, 2014, 7:09 pm

      I like your [one] point about the ISIL fanatics not beheading, terrorizing and mutilating fellow Muslims for anything to do with ‘honor/shame’ (or anything to do with ‘Arab culture’ )* and having everything to do with being psychopathic murdering zealots with a religious agenda. I don’t think there is anything specific to any given ‘culture’ to being a psycho murdering religious zealot. the world has many examples and these ISIL guys will go down as a [hopefully] short-lived virulent anomaly once the local Arabs are fed up.

      * just check on ISIL -or actually don’t, as they are horrific-propaganda sites where they glorify such brutality that it goes way beyond anything religious or cultural and into the mentally ill with an agenda. the worst of the worst.

      • Taxi
        June 29, 2014, 11:28 pm

        Dab,

        You missed the glaring parallel between what euro jews did to Palestine in 1948 and what ISIS is doing in the ME in 2014.

        It’s stupid to think you’re better than ISIS just cuz you got a few hi-tec startup companies and ISIS doesn’t.

        Both zionism and ISISism are being fought against and both will eventually be crushed then fed to the dogs of history.

      • Naftush
        June 30, 2014, 2:23 am

        “Eventually” is for Star Trek. Today, those threatened by ISISism are turning to Israel. Can’t imagine why.

      • Taxi
        June 30, 2014, 11:18 am

        ISIS is overblown – they’re a minority of a minority in the region – ugly and temporary – they’re already dead men walking. Unless of course you’re a strategic idiot and you think some 30.000 bastards are gonna take over a combined landscape large enough to be the size of a continent. The only concern with ISIS is the damage and bloodshed of innocents they’ve promised to cause while they’re being resisted/liquidated.

        “… those threatened by ISISism are turning to Israel.” You mean like the Jordain king himself, personally? LOL, right yeah like no one knew what a treasonous m-effer that piece of fake royalty is. Honey, no one is surprised by the coward king sleeping with the enemy. You’d think the moron king would ask for Hizbollah’s help, seeing they already thrashed the idf a couple of times and would have no problem upper-cutting ISIS’s stinking beard. So… anyone else running scared of ISIS and into your zio arms, huh? … Didn’t think so.

        Naffy, reality hasn’t changed: zionism is still considered more insidious and deadlier to the region than ISIS – because isreal is an alien rogue nation with nukes and dirty friends in high places, aiming to divide up both the caliphat-fatasy and the existing Arab countries. But israel too is a dead ‘it’ walking – swanning blindly into its self-dug grave.

        Naf, “eventually” is not for StarTrek – it’s for those living heroes who have the power of sumud.

      • Shingo
        July 1, 2014, 6:59 am

        You mean like the Jordain king himself, personally? LOL, right yeah like no one knew what a treasonous m-effer that piece of fake royalty is. Honey, no one is surprised by the coward king sleeping with the enemy. You’d think the moron king would ask for Hizbollah’s help, seeing they already thrashed the idf a couple of times and would have no problem upper-cutting ISIS’s stinking beard. So… anyone else running scared of ISIS and into your zio arms, huh? … Didn’t think so.

        I had to laugh at Naftush’s cluelessness there too Taxi. Abdullah is freaking out because he’s comming to terms with the moronic idea of allowing his territory to be the turned into the training ground and arms supply route for the Syrian rebels and his idiocy is threatening to come back and bite him.

        Sooner the better if you ask me. I would hope ISIS would set their sights further and take on the Saudis.

        The other irony of Naftush’s argument is that it is the opposite of reality. It’s the Israelis who are hoping to convince the Arabs to lay their bodies on the line and take on ISIS so they don’t have to.
        Shimon Peres Says ISIS Should Unite Arabs And Israel
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/28/shimon-peres-isis-israel_n_5540587.html

      • Hostage
        June 30, 2014, 2:08 pm

        “Eventually” is for Star Trek. Today, those threatened by ISISism are turning to Israel. Can’t imagine why.

        I’ve heard the fox in the hen house volunteer, but I haven’t heard about anyone dumb enough to accept the offer. Citation please.

      • Shingo
        July 1, 2014, 6:41 am

        Today, those threatened by ISISism are turning to Israel. Can’t imagine why.

        Wrong. The only ones turning to Israel are the US puppets dictators in Amman. There is no one ion Syria, Iraq, Lebanon or Iran turnign to Israel. Why should they?

      • traintosiberia
        July 1, 2014, 9:44 am

        https://medium.com/p/931bf65bd5e9 quoting the peace seeker humanist democracy promoting great human being who has same concern possibly for IsIs as the average Isareli supporters .
        Michael Ledeen 2002

        “One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today.”

        Asides from these individual remarks and off the cuff comments by the stakeholders ,the next thing to look for the obsession of these characters are as follow—to force other carry the burden of Israel. IsIs , or Shas Iran or Jordan king or Husni Mubarek or Sisi ( not IsIs) or even Abu Nidal at a loca level and get Germany,US,UK do the heavy lifting when the locals fail to do as required by the Israeli traditions of warfare , knowingly or inadvertently or by deception of long duration . By the time people realize the scheme, the train has moved to different station.
        ISIS is the product of the PNAC, Friedman’s neighborhood shaking, Cauldranization of M Ledeen, and theWolfoitz- Perle- Pletka_ Wurmser- WSJ- CNN- NYT inspired shock and awe .

  9. Stephen Shenfield
    June 29, 2014, 2:13 pm

    So apparently Landes identifies warrior-nomadic cultures with honor-shame cultures and both of these with Islam. Astonishing ignorance.

    Consider the historical relationship between “warrior nomadism” and Islam. It is true that for many centuries there were clashes in Eurasia between nomadic pastoralist-warriors and settled farmers (though these were not fixed categories — nomads often settled down and became farmers). But Islam was deeply entrenched among the settled farmers, in areas like the Ferghana Valley, while among the nomads it was either absent altogether or a superficial accretion on earlier beliefs (e.g., Tengrianism among the Kazakhs). Islam is not a convenient religion for nomads, who are constantly on the move and do not therefore build mosques.

    • Ron Edwards
      June 29, 2014, 4:21 pm

      Agreed. To bigots like Landes, Islam = Arab = Bedouin = “The Sheik” = brigands, and more. It’s a blend of British Empire and Hollywood melodrama. For anyone to credit this tripe with an academic degree and employment is a disgusting farce. Political science as political theater.

      • tree
        June 29, 2014, 6:33 pm

        For anyone to credit this tripe with an academic degree and employment is a disgusting farce.

        Agreed. There are so many things wrong with Landes’ “scholarship”. For instance, in no particular order:

        1-He conflates Arab with Islam, when the majority of Muslims are not Arab in culture. In fact, Arabs make up only 20% of the world’s Muslims.

        http://www.biblical.edu/faculty-blog/96-regular-content/699-the-third-myth-about-world-religions-all-muslims-are-arabs

        2-Honor killing, for one, is not a part of Islamic teaching, but a cultural remnant of areas that include the Arab Middle East but also affect areas in Hindu India, Christian Southern and Eastern Europe and South America. Indonesia, with the world’s largest Muslim population, does not have a history of honor killings. And Arab culture comprises not just Muslims but also Jew and Christians, who were also affected by the cultural acceptance of honor killings. Thus it cannot be ascribed as a feature of Muslim culture.

        Moreover, the custom predates the Islamic faith, and is by no means unique to Muslim cultures; also, there is little evidence of honour crime occurring in other Muslim countries such as Indonesia. The extent of cultures following the ‘honour ethic’ is more geographical than ideological, comprising the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean regions.

        In India, for example, many such murders are committed by Hindus and Sikhs. For some Hindus, an honour killing may be motivated by a woman marrying across caste boundaries. In 2003, a young couple who fell in love at University and contracted a secret marriage. Her family disapproved of the match due to his low status in the caste system. They were both forced to drink poison with scores of witnesses to their agonising deaths. Most cases in India occur in Punjab and Haryana (in which two provinces one out of every ten murders is an honour killing) and parts of western Uttar Pradesh. Many of these murders are ordered by an informal judicial system of caste panchayat, which is a self-proclaimed body consisting of village elders, from which women are excluded. Mangal Singh, a Sikh interviewed in Amritsar, claimed that the 17 women and children killed within his family were willing ‘martyrs’ in the name of family pride.

        Honour killing also happens in Christian communities in the Mediterranean and other regions. The culture of Ancient Rome allowed the father to kill his children if he deemed necessary. Honour killing was only abolished as a specific category in Italy in 1981, and murders in the name of honour still occur in the country. In 2006, Bruna Morito was shot six times in the face by her brother for bearing a child outside marriage. In Brazil, men could be acquitted for murdering their wives up until 1991, and there have been 800 recorded such murders in a single year. Even in 1991, a lower court ignored the ruling of the Supreme Court and acquitted Joao Lopes for the double homicide of his wife and her lover. In fact, the opposition of the woman as the vessel of familial honour and the man as its protector was widespread throughout the southern European region, although it is not clear how many murders are committed in the name of honour at the present time.

        Even within the Middle East, honour killing is not restricted to Muslims. In Yemen, a Jewish father killed his daughter after a rebuke from the rabbi for her extra-marital pregnancy, and in Palestine, in 2005, Faten Habash was beaten to death with an iron bar, wielded by her Christian father because she wanted to marry her Muslim boyfriend.

        http://www.islamawareness.net/HonourKilling/outside.html

        It should also be noted that in Western cultures up until recently a “crime of passion” was considered a legitimate defense against the charge of murder, and that domestic violence, often born of the same attitude that women must be subservient to men’s egos and sense of shame, is a continuing problem in the US and other Western cultures.

        3- Landes fails to note that the Muslim Ottoman Empire, which ruled over much of the Arab world, including Palestine, at that time, ended the dhimmi system in 1859.

        On February 18, 1856, the Ottoman Reform Edict of 1856 (Hatt-i Humayan) was issued, building upon the 1839 edict. It came about partly as a result of pressure from and the efforts of the ambassadors of Great Britain, France, and Austria, whose respective countries were needed as allies in the Crimean War. It again proclaimed the principle of equality between Muslims and non-Muslims, and produced many specific reforms to this end. For example, the jizya tax was abolished and non-Muslims were allowed to join the army.[37][38]

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

        During the earlier period under Ottoman and earlier Mamluk Egyptian control,

        Jews and Christians living under early Muslim rule were considered dhimmis, a status that was later also extended to other non-Muslims like Hindus. They were allowed to “practise their religion, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy” and guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying tribute and acknowledging Muslim rule.[49] Islamic law and custom prohibited the enslavement of free dhimmis within lands under Islamic rule.[50] Taxation from the perspective of dhimmis who came under the Muslim rule, was “a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes”[51] (but lower under the Muslim rule[52][53]). They were also exempted from the zakat tax paid by Muslims. The dhimmi communities living in Islamic states had their own laws independent from the Sharia law, such as the Jews who had their own Halakha courts.[54] The dhimmi communities had their own chiefs and judges, with their own family, personal and religious laws,[55] and “generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century”.[56] “Muslims guaranteed freedom of worship and livelihood, provided that they remained loyal to the Muslim state and paid a poll tax”.[57] “Muslim governments appointed Christian and Jewish professionals to their bureaucracies”,[57] and thus, Christians and Jews “contributed to the making of the Islamic civilization”.[57]
        However, dhimmis faced social and symbolic restrictions,[58] and a pattern of stricter, then more lax, enforcement developed over time.[59] Marshall Hodgson, a historian of Islam, writes that during the era of the High Caliphate (7th–13th Centuries), zealous Shariah-minded Muslims gladly elaborated their code of symbolic restrictions on the dhimmis.[60]
        From an Islamic legal perspective, the pledge of protection granted dhimmis the freedom to practice their religion and spared them forced conversions. The dhimmis also served a variety of useful purposes, mostly economic, which was another point of concern to jurists.[61] Religious minorities were free to do whatever they wished in their own homes, but could not “publically engage in illicit sex in ways that threaten public morals”.[62] In some cases, religious practices that Muslims found repugnant were allowed. One example was the Zoroastrian practice of incestuous “self-marriage” where a man could marry his mother, sister or daughter. According to the famous Islamic legal scholar Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya (1292–1350), non-Muslims had the right to engage in such religious practices even if it offended Muslims, under the conditions that such cases not be presented to Islamic Sharia courts and that these religious minorities believed that the practice in question is permissible according to their religion. This ruling was based on the precedent that Muhammad did not forbid such self-marriages among Zoroastrians despite coming in contact with them and having knowledge of their practices.[63]
        The Arabs generally established garrisons outside towns in the conquered territories, and had little interaction with the local dhimmi populations for purposes other than the collection of taxes. The conquered Christian, Jewish, Mazdean and Buddhist communities were otherwise left to lead their lives as before.[64]

        Same link as above.

        4-Anyone who equates Muslim era dhimmi status with Israel’s present day treatment of the Palestinians is vastly over demonizing dhimmi status and whitewashing Israel’s actions. Dhimmi status did not involve any ethnic cleansing, torture, home demolitions, harsh military rule, land theft, ethnic based checkpoints or any of the other present day abominations visited by Israel on the Palestinians under occupation and those made refugees, or those who remained under separate military rule for 19 years in Israel itself and still suffer from considerable discrimination that includes continuing land theft and home demolitions.

        Landes is a poster boy for a “shame and honor” attitude that seeks revenge for a perceived slight in regards to earlier historical dhimmi status for non-Muslims, thus proving that “guilt” culture hasn’t really taken a firm hold in the US if his kind of “scholarship” is considered intelligent fare.

        5- Landes traces the conflict back to 1948 but leaves out the fact that Zionsim in Palestine existed for more than 50 years before that, and set up a separate system for Jews that disadvantaged indigenous Palestinians by denying them rights as tenant farmers on Jewish owned land, and by promoting the “conquest of labor” and “conquest of land”, both of which entailed the denial of equal employment, and equal rights to land for non-Jews, an obvious situation of decades of shame and offended honor for the indigenous Palestinians. If this supposed “shame and honor” culture was so strong in Muslim majority Palestine then Zionism, with its oh so obvious bias against the indigenous population, would have been snuffed out in revenge way before immigrant Jews reached one third of the population and set about ethnically cleansing the two thirds of the population who didn’t meet their ethnic requirements.

        Landes speaks from a racist perspective that one would have hoped had died in the US many decades ago, not see enshrined in academia and feted by supposedly reputable media. Reality, sadly, is otherwise. One can rationalize the denial of rights to a group of people based on the idea that ethnically speaking they are too primitive and savage to dare to give them equality. A truly ugly racist idea, espoused by supposedly “enlightened” individuals. Disgusting.

        As an additional point, I think Nikles gives a bit too much credit to Landes’ ideas, as he seems to accept Landes’ inaccurate description of dhimmi status, and seems to think that honor killings are mostly a Muslim and Arab problem when they are not.

      • just
        June 29, 2014, 6:39 pm

        A+

        Many thanks, tree.

      • Kate
        June 30, 2014, 4:21 pm

        Exactly, just! Tree, you made every single point that I was preparing to make and then some – and you made them much better than I could have. Terrific.

      • traintosiberia
        June 29, 2014, 8:34 pm

        History is rich with evidences of periodic uprising by the Jews throughout its recorded existence under different rulers and under different regimes.
        If Dhmnitude were of such macabre ,polluted,uncivilized,exploitative nature ,why no one heard of any similar uprising under Islam?

      • Ellen
        June 30, 2014, 4:52 am

        Why are there no reports of revolts against Dhmnitude back in the day? Because as tree’s excellent post above points out: for the realities of the time, there were some advantages to it. Sovereignty, guaranteed protection, release from obligations such as military service, etc.

        It was not deemed a lessor status.

      • Pat Nguyen
        June 30, 2014, 10:34 am

        Now you are just making up things.
        The last Jewish revolt was the Bar Kokhba (132 – 135 CE) in their own land of Judea.
        What a really intellectually lazy way to defend dhmnitude

      • Shingo
        July 1, 2014, 6:46 am

        The last Jewish revolt was the Bar Kokhba (132 – 135 CE) in their own land of Judea.

        Rubbish. The Bar Kokhba was nothing more than a failed riot. It was not their land anymore.

      • Hostage
        June 30, 2014, 4:15 pm

        Now you are just making up things.
        The last Jewish revolt was the Bar Kokhba (132 – 135 CE) in their own land of Judea.

        So let me get this straight. The uprising against servitude and the exodus from Egypt doesn’t count, the revolt and split between the northern and southern Kingdom doesn’t count, and even the revolts against the Romans don’t somehow count, because we have been pacifists ever since. The Zionist militias didn’t stage a revolt against their British oppressors in order to drive them out of Palestine – and Yad Vashem Museum is simply lying about combat resistance and ghetto uprisings during the Holocaust, e.g. http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/about/07/resistance.asp For that matter, the widespread reports of the slaughter of half a million gentiles in the Kitos Wars, carried out by the Jewish diaspora in the territory from the coasts of northern Africa and Cyprus all the way east to Mespotamia, that preceded the Bar Kochba’s revolt, never happened and was made up. All of the political intrigues of the Jewish ministers of the Sultan against the Christian Kings and Princes of Russia, Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands in Heinrich Graetz “History of the Jews” is all just bullshit? Those Jewish ministers who were the power behind the scenes in the Porte, according to Graetz, were nothing but dhimmis? Wow are you ever out of your depth.

      • MHughes976
        June 30, 2014, 5:37 pm

        Thanks, Tree – this is in the highest traditions of Mondo objectivity. I would reject Landes’ rhetoric another way, in that he seems to suggest that intense resentment of the treatment meted out to the Palestinians in 48 and since needs some special form of resentment-enhancing culture to reach the levels that we sometimes see. If earth people were all confined to a small portion of the planet by the Martians and even there subject to occupation and humiliation we would all resent the flying saucers and ray guns to much the same degree.

      • traintosiberia
        June 30, 2014, 7:47 pm

        Landes uses the history of Dhimnitude to justify a situation worse than Dhimnitude on citizens who have enjoyed better lifestyle before ( Jewish life improved in Jerusalem , Spain, Turkey after Muslim conquest and imposed dhimnitude. Conditions of Muslim and Christians deteriorated after 1947)

        There is a other side to this same dirty coin. Latunberg brought 450,000 Jews from USSR who never been victimized or persecuted and did not bring the Muslim and the Christians that were persecuted in the same period from other parts of the world including fromUSSR ( how many Christians came from Iraq Iran war, how many Afghanistani came from Afghanistan war, how any Hindus came from Kashmir or Sikhs from India or how many Pakistanis came from East Pakistan or how many Muslims came from the killing fields of Cambodia or how many Muslims came from Philipnes or Ethiopia or India after 1992 ?)
        Latunberg made this up by claiming that history of past persecution to the community should suffice to be considered and be given refugee status .No need to prove any harm pr possibility of harm to the Jews applying for refugee status to US and get all the benefits.
        Did he include any Palestinian?
        Landes and Latunberg ,both work from the different ends of the same premise . Is it going to be useful for their tribe to create convolutedly worded logic in order to justify illegal behaviors or gain benefits illegally? If the answer is yes,then the academic precincts or the public office are no bar but could be misused to realize those dishonest projects.

  10. unverified__5ilf90kd
    June 29, 2014, 2:42 pm

    I have been trying to talk to Jews about the Palestinians for more than 50 years. When I got down to details, not all, but most of them sounded like Landes. At that point when they discovered that I did not share their irrational and simplistic views and that I had some knowledge about the situation, they cut me off; our relationship ended. I find that very depressing. Thank you to Mondoweiss for sharing my analysis that this behavior is a “fantasy rationalization of a pretty simplistic sort”.

  11. amigo
    June 29, 2014, 2:48 pm

    “He relates how in such cultures the failure to avenge a killing is so shameful that it cannot be lived down. ” landes

    So he is lumping zionism in with such cultures.They sure know how to avenge a killing.Such cultures can,t be all bad if the chosen people adopt and then improve them.

    “Israelis’ future depends on their ability to understand why their neighbors hate them and what can and won’t work in trying to deal with their hostility. ” landes

    If that is what Israel,s future depends on , then let me suggest that Israel has no future.

    Catch up landes.You are way behind this class.

  12. dbroncos
    June 29, 2014, 2:56 pm

    What was the Iraq war if not an honor killing festival on a grand scale. America’s honor had been attacked on 9/11 therefore Iraqi Arabs had to pay with their lives. Questions of guilt were never seriously considered by the “deciders” or most Americans who supported the war.

    • just
      June 29, 2014, 3:26 pm

      So was our war in Afghanistan and our nasty history behind it…….innocent Afghans have been losing their lives and limbs, homes and freedom for nigh on 4o years.

      (PS– we lost both Afghanistan and Iraq, and Vietnam before them. ‘Honor wars’ based on bs and lies eventually will always be lost by the invader.)

    • Walid
      June 29, 2014, 3:31 pm

      dbroncos, before being sent to Iraq, American officers had to read certain books. At the captain’s rank, one of the books they had to read was Patai’s “The Arab Mind” which in a nutshell, summed up the Arab psyche as being driven by honor and shame and to break the will of the natives in Iraq, these 2 points had to be concentrated on. That’s from where they came out with walking prisoners on a leash as if dogs, making them bark and parading them naked in front of other prisoners to shame them. The investigation of the abuses at Abu Ghraib pointed directly to the indoctrination American officers had received on how to break the Arabs by humiliating and shaming them. There was an actual trainer and lecturer drilling the officers about the Arab psyche. Landes is now peddling the same garbage and of course, it’s music to Zionist ears.

      Raphael Patai’s book, the Arab Mind, which he based on interviews with about 200 people from only one country out of a total of 22 Arab countries led him to believe that all 400 million Arabs are one and the same based on the 200 interviews he conducted.

      The reading list for captains at Fort Benning page 37 sumarizes the book for the officers:

      “One of the most comprehensive and literate volumes on Arab culture, this book is in its fourth edition since the 1973 publication. Patai weaves the writings and research of Arabs and non-Arabs explored during his three generations of life and study in the Middle East. Patai explains why it is important for Westerners to understand what motivates the “Arab Street” and Arab countries in the light of the pervasive motto: “I and my brothers against my cousin; I am my cousins against the stranger [the world].””

      http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/199th/ibolc/content/PDF/ChiefofInfantryReadingListApr09.pdf

      • Ron Edwards
        June 29, 2014, 4:27 pm

        Beat me to it, Walid. Better than I could have done, so that’s good.

      • seafoid
        June 29, 2014, 5:14 pm

        I wonder if officers now read Generation Kill. They should. That discredited zionist racist discourse gives zero insight into the complexity of the region. If the bots knew anything Iraq would have cost $50 m or whatever the stupidest fucking man in the planet said it would.

  13. weiss
    June 29, 2014, 3:11 pm

    “When Cherie Blair expressed her understanding for the despair of suicide bombers, she projected her liberal world view on people who actually aspire to the highest honor their society can offer: martyrdom in the war to kill the Jews. …”

    Equating suicide bombers with Liberals is a typical Fox News Tactic…
    One would expect more intelligence than that from an “esteemed” university professor.

    Landis is the epitome of Right-Wing Fascists POSING as educators in prominent universities here in the US. The extremist Alan Dershowitz is also in this class of Fascist Fools …

    Why the LOVE affair with the FAR RIGHT Israel???

    Last time I checked, Fascism is on the FAR RIGHT of the political spectrum…

    Diametrically OPPOSED to Totalitarian Communism…

    WE Jews are supposed to be FIGHTING Fascism NOT EMBRACING IT !!!

    • Naftush
      June 30, 2014, 2:28 am

      You say, “Equating suicide bombers with Liberals is a typical Fox News Tactic…”
      Who said, “Understanding Hamas [and] Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important”? Was it Fox?

      • traintosiberia
        June 30, 2014, 8:07 pm

        To understand the transition of Hizbullah or Hamas from the social movement to freedom fight ,you have to understand the transition of the Boston Tea Party to the army under Washington fighting for independence.
        But you should not conflate the transition of Herzl from genuine disgust at Dreyfus affairs to illegal demand for a country in a foreign land with that of the genesis of various independence movements across third world in the same time period all starting with demand for justice and honor ending in establishing of independent country within the native land.

      • Shingo
        July 1, 2014, 6:40 am

        Who said, “Understanding Hamas [and] Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important”? Was it Fox?

        Straw man. No one ever suggested either group was progressive or part of the global Left.

        Hasbra fail!

  14. seafoid
    June 29, 2014, 3:17 pm

    Human rights are where it’s at. Why can’t the Palestinians have any? I don’t get it, especially in the Light unto the nations. Israel is a global shop window for Judaism and it looks like a toilet that hasn’t been cleaned for years.

    • just
      June 29, 2014, 3:28 pm

      Smells like it, too. No amount of flushing with stolen water will clear the air, either.

      Occupation and murder and theft all reek to high heaven.

  15. Taxi
    June 29, 2014, 3:29 pm

    What an ayhole. Landes could have saved his readers time and tedium by being honest and succinct and saying what he actually really means without the distracting stink of his cheap intellectual aftershave. He takes so frigging long to say: jews are superior to Arabs and Arabs are impossible to civilize so let’s just holocaust them and the sooner the better.

    That’s really his message in a nutshell.

    This supremist jew is truly, unbearably hideous – because of his remorseless violence, and because of his utter ignorance of not just Arabs, but the human condition itself.

    No difference between Landes’ 1939 supremist world view and the salafists who crucified nine people in Iraq yesterday. Identical ideologies.

    And to think that the children of the victims of the holocaust are fast reviving and spreading fascism across the globe….

    Shame.

  16. Walid
    June 29, 2014, 3:56 pm

    Since Landes is repeating Patai’s faulty concepts, more on Patai.

    From a 2004 Guardian article wiping the floor with the misconception about Arabs and the book that is said is best used as a doorstop:

    … Writing about Arabs, rather than black people, in these terms apparently makes all the difference between a racist smear and an admirable work of scholarship.

    The book in question is called The Arab Mind, and is by Raphael Patai, a cultural anthropologist who taught at several US universities, including Columbia and Princeton.

    I must admit that, despite having spent some years studying Arabic language and culture, I had not heard of this alleged masterpiece until last week, when the investigative journalist Seymour Hersh mentioned it in an article for New Yorker magazine.

    Hersh was discussing the chain of command that led US troops to torture Iraqi prisoners. Referring specifically to the sexual nature of some of this abuse, he wrote: “The notion that Arabs are particularly vulnerable to sexual humiliation became a talking point among pro-war Washington conservatives in the months before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    “One book that was frequently cited was The Arab Mind … the book includes a 25-page chapter on Arabs and sex, depicting sex as a taboo vested with shame and repression.”

    Hersh continued: “The Patai book, an academic told me, was ‘the bible of the neocons on Arab behaviour’. In their discussions, he said, two themes emerged – ‘one, that Arabs only understand force, and two, that the biggest weakness of Arabs is shame and humiliation’.”

    Last week, my own further enquiries about the book revealed something even more alarming. Not only is it the bible of neocon headbangers, but it is also the bible on Arab behaviour for the US military.

    According to one professor at a US military college, The Arab Mind is “probably the single most popular and widely read book on the Arabs in the US military”. It is even used as a textbook for officers at the JFK special warfare school in Fort Bragg.

    In some ways, the book’s appeal to the military is easy to understand, because it gives a superficially coherent view of the Arab enemy and their supposed personality defects. It is also readily digestible, uncomplicated by nuances and caveats, and has lots of juicy quotes, a generous helping of sex, and no academic jargon.

    The State Department, too, used to take an interest in the book, although it seemingly no longer does. At one stage, the training department gave free copies to officials when they were posted to US embassies in the Middle East.

    In contrast, opinions of Patai’s book among Middle East experts at US universities are almost universally scathing. “The best use for this volume, if any, is as a doorstop,” one commented. “The book is old, and a thoroughly discredited form of scholarship,” said another.

    None of the academics I contacted thought the book suitable for serious study, although Georgetown University once invited students to analyse it as “an example of bad, biased social science”.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/may/24/worlddispatch.usa

    • just
      June 29, 2014, 4:09 pm

      Patai’s “scholarship” should remain buried with him, but Landes is trying to breathe his own fetid Arabphobic/Islamophobic life into it.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        June 29, 2014, 5:44 pm

        It’s sad to see the career trajectory of Brian Whittaker. Ten years ago, he was one of the best informed, most interesting journalists to write about the Arab world in a mainstream English language publication. In the past few years, however, he has become yet another lazy shill for Westerns wars and intervention in the region, little better than Thomas Friedman, but at least without the puerile smart-alecky quips.

  17. seafoid
    June 29, 2014, 4:11 pm

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/29/israel-prime-minister-kurdish-independence

    “Binyamin Netanyahu claims Kurdish independence would aid in formation of alliance of moderate powers in Middle East”

    A bit rich coming from the Jewish version of ISIS. What is Erez Israel other than the a Jewish style Caliphate?

    • seafoid
      June 29, 2014, 4:41 pm

      From the same link

      “Netanyahu said that given the threats in the region, Israel would have to maintain a military presence throughout the West Bank for the foreseeable future. “We must be able to stop the terrorism and fundamentalism that can reach us from the east at the Jordan line and not in the suburbs of Tel Aviv. He went on to say that whoever does not accept Israel’s need for a security presence “isn’t facing reality”.”

      That’s why Jews East have to run apartheid 2.0
      Let’s see how long they can use the Shoah to justify it.

      • a blah chick
        June 29, 2014, 5:18 pm

        In America we call this “moving the goalposts,” or in this case tearing them down, burning them in a bon fire, and then pissing on the ashes

      • Naftush
        June 30, 2014, 2:31 am

        In America they call it maintaining forces in Germany, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, correctly not trusting two oceans to provide sufficient defense (cf. Pearl Harbor and the Atlantic shipping war). And Seafoid, where in your quote of Netanyahu or anywhere else does Shoah exploitation figure into it?

      • Hostage
        June 30, 2014, 2:04 pm

        In America they call it maintaining forces in Germany, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, correctly not trusting two oceans to provide sufficient defense (cf. Pearl Harbor and the Atlantic shipping war).

        Having troops in those locations does not stop attacks on the USA, as 9/11 amply illustrated. The US forward deploys troops and equipment for use in conflicts in regions it considers vital to its national interests and for strategic deterrence. We damn sure don’t implant settlers in any of those territories. So the analogy is bogus. But I think you already know that and just use your account to troll the threads.

      • Woody Tanaka
        June 30, 2014, 2:15 pm

        “And Seafoid, where in your quote of Netanyahu or anywhere else does Shoah exploitation figure into it?”

        LMAO. Yeah, because Israelis NEVER misuse the memory of those killed in the Holocaust to push its evil policies…

    • a blah chick
      June 29, 2014, 5:12 pm

      If the Kurds have any sense they will give the Israelis a wide burth.

      • just
        June 29, 2014, 6:47 pm

        The Kurds would have to be deranged in order to listen to anything Netanyahu says.

        I’d stock up on bulbs of garlic, some mirrors, and plenty of robust stakes for protection.

        The Kurds are finally living pretty well.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        June 29, 2014, 7:01 pm

        Unfortunately the Kurds – at least those in Iraq – have been cozying up to Israel for ages now. The Turkish Kurds probably remember that during their long war with the state of Turkey a few decades ago, Israel was very close to the ruling military junta.

      • Walid
        June 30, 2014, 1:01 am

        It started happening on a really large scale after the US established a no-fly zone for Saddam. Something like 500 Israeli companies under US cover moved into the Kurdish north and began building and rebuilding it. It was good for the Kurds and the Israelis. The Kurdish north became a “safe area”, especially for American forces during their occupation.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 30, 2014, 1:22 am

        walid, as i recall israeli commandos/mossad were training the peshmerga/PDK.

        Uploaded on Dec 12, 2006.. This ground breaking Exclusive Footage by BBC of Israeli’s training Kurds prove the long established claim by Iran that it is Israel and Occupied Forces who is interferreing in Iraq!

      • Walid
        June 30, 2014, 4:24 am

        Interesting, Annie, but you’d find Israel training anyone that would fight an Arab regime. Some of Syria’s rebels were also trained by Israel after they had crossed over to the Golan for medical treatment.

        About last week’s delivery of Kurdish oil to Israel:

        On June 20, the oil tanker SCF Altai docked in Israel and offloaded oil from Kurdistan. The completion of the sale marked a huge win for the semi-autonomous region in Iraq and has emboldened its leaders to accelerate their push for independence as the rest of the country seemingly collapses.

        The oil delivery to Israel was apparently not the first. According to a statement by Iraq’s Oil Ministry, earlier this year the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) sold four other shipments of oil to Israel. The Iraqi government has condemned the sales and labeled it “smuggling.” Not only is the sale of oil without Baghdad’s approval illegal in the eyes of Iraq’s leaders, but the KRG sold the oil to Israel, a country with which Iraq does not have a relationship and is still technically at war.

        http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Oil-Sale-Boosts-Kurdistan-As-It-Signals-Move-Toward-Independence.html

    • just
      June 29, 2014, 5:17 pm

      Divide and conquer…and stir stuff up so other folks die and are forced to clean up the resultant mess.

      ugh.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      June 29, 2014, 5:47 pm

      I saw that. The fool Netanyahu let the cat out of the bag. I mean, everyone knows Zionists heart the Kurds because they see them as a useful tool in their revised ‘alliance of the periphery’. But they’re not supposed to SAY that. They’re supposed to pretend that they have a crush on the Kurds because they are oh so modern, secular and clever. Of course, the Kurds are not necessarily any of these things. Their real appeal to Zionists is that firstly, they’re useful as a cat’s paw, and secondly, they’re not Arabs.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      June 29, 2014, 5:51 pm

      Essentially, Bibi has declared the end of the ‘two state solution’. A state occupied by foreign troops is not a state.

      Is the world going to listen to him? Or will the farce of the ‘peace process’ be allowed to continue?

    • Walid
      June 30, 2014, 4:05 am

      From seafoid’s linked article

      “… Netanyahu said that given the threats in the region, Israel would have to maintain a military presence throughout the West Bank for the foreseeable future. “We must be able to stop the terrorism and fundamentalism that can reach us from the east at the Jordan line and not in the suburbs of Tel Aviv. He went on to say that whoever does not accept Israel’s need for a security presence “isn’t facing reality”.”

      There we go; Israel now has a valid reason for maintaining its hold on the West Bank for ever and ever and ever. Before, Netanyahu was using that gimmick to hold on to the Jordan Valley but now with ISIS in the picture, Netanyahu wants it all. Yesterday he was even talking about going over to Jordan to give a hand in holding back ISIS from taking over. Maybe he’ll start talking about taking over Jordan to better protect TA from attack. Sick sick mentality.

  18. Feathers
    June 29, 2014, 4:35 pm

    He relates how in such cultures the failure to avenge a killing is so shameful that it cannot be lived down. He contrasts this with a 1000-year transition in Western Greek culture from a “shame culture” (honoring fame and reputation above all) to a “guilt culture” (marked by an internal conscience and a fear of divine retribution) underpinning our liberal democracies.

    The laddy doth project too much methinks.

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-assumes-missing-airman-ron-arad-is-still-alive-1.8376

    http://giladshalit.blogspot.com

    Lo Mashirim ptzueim bashetach

  19. LarryDerfner
    June 29, 2014, 5:00 pm

    I actually can’t believe all the crap Arabs take from Israel without hitting back; it tells me how much more powerful Israel is than them, and how rational, how sober, how concerned with self-preservation the Arabs are. For instance, Israel reportedly bombed Syria six times last year; how many times did Syria bomb Israel? None. Does that sound like an “honor-shame” mentality? Does that sound like the kind of people Israel can’t ever make peace with? As Orwell would have said about Landes, only a professor could be so stupid.

    • tree
      June 29, 2014, 6:49 pm

      Great comment, Larry. Spot-on.

    • Naftush
      June 30, 2014, 2:36 am

      An odd takeoff on the bodycount fallacy (= the side that boasts the most fatalities is in the right): the bombing fallacy (= whoever reportedly bombed the other more times is in the wrong). Ah, I got it: Israel bombed Syria; Syria merely shelled and sniped into Israel. Bring this to Bibi’s knowledge, Derfner; maybe he’ll hand over Lake Kinneret.

      • Hostage
        June 30, 2014, 1:56 pm

        An odd takeoff on the bodycount fallacy (= the side that boasts the most fatalities is in the right): the bombing fallacy (= whoever reportedly bombed the other more times is in the wrong). Ah, I got it: Israel bombed Syria; Syria merely shelled and sniped into Israel. Bring this to Bibi’s knowledge, Derfner;

        He doesn’t have to, since he already wrote at least one article pointing out that you can’t cite Article 51 of the UN Charter to justify bombing a UN member state over the acquisition of conventional air defense systems. Bibi is perfectly aware of that fact, and used the lame excuse that Syria could declare a no-fly zone over Israel and the OPt with the S-300 system. IMO, sane intellects would have to view that as a good idea that could end Israel’s outlandish policies of aggression against others.

      • Shingo
        July 1, 2014, 6:38 am

        An odd takeoff on the bodycount fallacy (= the side that boasts the most fatalities is in the right)

        You’re just bitter because this describes Israel until about a decade ago.

        the bombing fallacy (= whoever reportedly bombed the other more times is in the wrong).

        Yes that is true, but in Israel’s case, it is whoever reportedly bombed first or without any reason or cause, or who created a false pretext (Israel) is wrong.

        Israel bombed Syria; Syria merely shelled and sniped into Israel.

        There is no evidence Syria did anything of the sort.

        Carry on.

    • Walid
      June 30, 2014, 4:29 am

      “and how rational, how sober, how concerned with self-preservation ”

      Could have added ritualistic to the list. Syria not responding to multiple Israeli attacks with other than rhetoric is part of it. Saw it again last week with Hamas saying it had the capacity to hit any part of Israel. What’s holding it back?

  20. rationalist
    June 29, 2014, 5:17 pm

    None of this changes the fact that Palestinians were forcibly dispossessed from their homes by colonists who were imposed upon them by foreign powers. Nor does it change the West’s history of inappropriate intervention in the Middle East; from supporting terrorist groups when it was convenient to helping the Shah overthrow Iran’s democratic government because they were about to nationalize the oil supply.

    Extremists probably do act upon feelings of shame and honor, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate grievances which need to be addressed.

  21. yonah fredman
    June 29, 2014, 5:40 pm

    If politics is the art of the possible, then what Landes is engaged in here is the art of the impossible. This is why it is impossible. And I certainly do not know enough about history and culture to contradict him, but I agree with Derfner that rationality, though it might not reign supreme 24/7/365, is still the primary driving factor for most middle eastern actors and though culture might be working against us, it is my belief that there is a possible there, certainly with Abbas on the other side.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      June 29, 2014, 5:49 pm

      ”I agree with Derfner that rationality, though it might not reign supreme 24/7/365, is still the primary driving factor for most middle eastern actors”

      That’s obviously true. I mean, there are tons of Israelis who believe their little 19th century colonial project has a future. Irrationality reigns supreme, indeed.

      • yonah fredman
        June 30, 2014, 3:40 am

        The nature of settling Israel and the need to focus on a near horizon rather than “the future” is exemplified in the statement: “one goat, one dunam, one day.” unfortunately when israel’s leaders had an opportunity to ensure that future they passed on the chance and the situation today, post the second intifada, has a narrow future horizon.

        What will be 50 years from now is a silly question to someone who cannot quite envision what 5 years from now will look like.

  22. tokyobk
    June 29, 2014, 6:53 pm

    He begins his piece with Ruth Benedict on Japan.

    Benedict never visited Japan and knew no Japanese language if any people.

    She was translating Japanese military propaganda as evidence of the entire culture.

    Her book ended up being enormously important to US and Japanese politics and also ended up (not surprisingly because open transfer is actually how culture works) influencing Japanese ideas of self in the post-war.

    But, no scholar of Japan takes her work as a serious anthropology of Japan. It was a political book with a political purpose and result (know your enemy and then organize an occupation). All things are political in some sense but what is happening hewer is also the desire to define Arab culture for very explicit political purposes, not to understand a complex, dynamic, diverse, influenced and influencing culture of human beings in a given region.

  23. Ismail
    June 29, 2014, 7:03 pm

    “Similarly, the allegation of Arafat “shocking” Clinton with his rejection is presented without the faintest concession to subtlety (see link)….”

    Link appears to be broken. Fix please, I’m curious.

  24. William Burns
    June 29, 2014, 8:01 pm

    Landes isn’t even consistent with himself–if the motive of the Palestinians was to avoid shame, and suffering killings without reprisal was shameful, why would they fake their own deaths ala the “Pallywood” scenario? All they’d be doing is incurring more shame.

  25. traintosiberia
    June 29, 2014, 8:24 pm

    Landis has faith in a culture that expiates guilt by ordering more acts that would have caused guilt among those with conscience and ability to appreciate human rights but not in him .
    He is using the podium ,an exalted academic position ,to perpetuate a myth of recent origin mostly propagated by the Zionist .

    • just
      June 29, 2014, 9:01 pm

      Such wonderful news, isn’t it?!!!!!!!

      • Annie Robbins
        June 29, 2014, 10:29 pm

        for anyone who has not seen USA vs Al-Arian

        http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/usa_vs_al_arian

      • Hostage
        June 29, 2014, 11:33 pm

        Such wonderful news, isn’t it?!!!!!!!

        Hell yes it is. If the Dreyfus Affair proved that Jews needed a safe haven, then the Al-Arian and Holy Land Foundation Affairs prove that Palestinians need one too, and that they can’t get a square deal in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

  26. just
    June 29, 2014, 11:37 pm

    Ilan Pappe on BBC Hardtalk… so far super.

    not available on video yet.

    “The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, at its heart, a story of two peoples and one land. Both see history as their justification. Which means a historian who appears to change sides inevitably becomes a figure of enormous controversy. HARDtalk speaks to Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe who says the record shows that the Jewish state is racist; born of a deliberate programme of ethnic cleansing. Not surprisingly he’s widely reviled in his home country. Has his anti-Zionism undermined his academic integrity?”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b049nksn

    • just
      June 30, 2014, 12:05 am

      Well, that was very good. Catch it if you can.

      Pappe pulled no punches, and Sackur was Sackur (well prepared, informed and a debater.)

  27. ymedad
    June 30, 2014, 12:13 am

    This claim — “to suggest that an honor-shame culture necessarily means that Palestinians will, therefore, never accept Israel and that they will always hate…is to engage in a fantasy rationalization of a pretty simplistic sort.” — is fantastic itself. No local Arab leadership representing to any degree the resident Arab population or receiving the support of such accepted Israel, recognized any form of Jewish national ethos or accepted Jewish sovereign presence on any territory of what they refer to as “Palestine”. Nor have they seriously engaged in any diplomatic resolution nor have they ever yielded the right to “armed struggle” or ceased engaging in so. That’s farily simple.

    • Naftush
      June 30, 2014, 2:42 am

      Neither have they indicated that a diplomatic settlement of any kind would represent finality of claims. Neither have they abandoned their hope of support from Arab and Muslim states in the “armed struggle” (a hope that contributed crucially to their refugee problem). Neither do they realize that in the event of their “victory,” the political class that dominates this forum will immediately lose interest in them as they create another Arab sinkhole state.

      • Hostage
        June 30, 2014, 1:48 pm

        Neither have they indicated that a diplomatic settlement of any kind would represent finality of claims.

        Wow! Just Wow! The lack of self-awareness is just stunning. The post-WWII settlement conferences also incorporated terms regarding finality of claims. I don’t suppose you’ve noticed how we Jews have nonetheless pursued individual and class action judgments through the Courts and established our own standing claims conference that cajoles more and more money from the Germans every year? It’s a good thing that billion dollar Swiss Bank indemnity was a voluntary pretrial out-of-court settlement, because it would certainly have been appealed and reversed after the Supreme Court decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.

      • Shingo
        July 1, 2014, 7:01 am

        I don’t suppose you’ve noticed how we Jews have nonetheless pursued individual and class action judgments through the Courts and established our own standing claims conference that cajoles more and more money from the Germans every year?

        Brilliant observation and rebuttal Hostage.

      • Shingo
        July 1, 2014, 6:36 am

        Neither have they indicated that a diplomatic settlement of any kind would represent finality of claims.

        Israel has made it clear they not interested at all in a diplomatic settlement of any kind.

        Neither have they abandoned their hope of support from Arab and Muslim states in the “armed struggle” (a hope that contributed crucially to their refugee problem).

        Why should they while they are being occupied militarily?

        Neither do they realize that in the event of their “victory,” the political class that dominates this forum will immediately lose interest in them as they create another Arab sinkhole state.

        What amazes me is the irony of Zionist facists like you Naftush, that like to denigrate Palestinians as a population that no one cares about, even while Zionists have argued all along that the reason Jews need a state is because they are universally despised.

        Of anything, you supremacists should be empathising with their predicament.

      • RoHa
        July 1, 2014, 6:51 am

        “Neither do they realize that in the event of their “victory,” the political class that dominates this forum will immediately lose interest in them”

        Why would it matter if we did lose interest in them? They would no longer need our support for their political ends, so why should we not turn our attention to other worthy causes. (Promoting the correct use of commas, for example.)

    • talknic
      June 30, 2014, 2:46 am

      @ ymedad “No local Arab leadership representing to any degree the resident Arab population or receiving the support of such accepted Israel, recognized any form of Jewish national ethos..

      How odd…. Abbas, at the UN, in front of the world, contradicts your inane drivel.

      “… or accepted Jewish sovereign presence on any territory of what they refer to as “Palestine””

      Why should they accept Jewish sovereign presence on any Palestinian territory? Israel is the Jewish state, not Palestine!

      “Nor have they seriously engaged in any diplomatic resolution”

      Strange … see Abbas at the UN and the Arab peace initiative which has been on the table for about a decade. Israel prefers more idiotic illegal facts on the ground.

      “nor have they ever yielded the right to “armed struggle” or ceased engaging in so. “

      Why should they? All people have a right to armed struggle against invaders and occupiers.

  28. Hostage
    June 30, 2014, 1:52 am

    No local Arab leadership representing to any degree the resident Arab population or receiving the support of such accepted Israel, recognized any form of Jewish national ethos or accepted Jewish sovereign presence on any territory of what they refer to as “Palestine”.

    Well that’s demonstrably false, since Arafat explicitly recognized Israel’s right to exist in writing. There are other examples, which are a matter of public record in the UN archives.

    In 1996, the representative of Palestine to the United Nations notified both the Security Council (S/1999/334) and General Assembly (A/53/879) that:

    since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. [Hello ymedad are you listening to that formal recognition of the Jewish state’s right to exist?] According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
    Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). Israel’s claim that the resolution is “null and void” is illegal, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.
    Prior to its admission to United Nations membership, Israel made clear pledges to the members of the United Nations that it would implement resolution 181 (II) and resolution 194 (III) of 1949, related inter alia to the rights of Palestine refugees. In actuality, resolution 273 (III) of 11 May 1949, admitting Israel to membership in the United Nations, recalled in its preamble both of those resolutions and took note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the Ad Hoc Political Committee with respect to the implementation of the said resolutions.
    Furthermore, in the “Declaration of the State of Israel”, it is clearly stated that Israel is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of 29 November 1947. In fact, the declaration, at least in part, was made on “the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly”.
    Thus, while we are not sure whether or not the officials of the Israeli Foreign Ministry understand what they are stating and its implications, the international community should nevertheless take it seriously. Moreover, we believe that Israel must still explain to the international community the measures it took illegally to extend its laws and regulations to the territory it occupied in the war of 1948, beyond the territory allocated to the Jewish State in resolution 181 (II). Such a situation has not been accepted by the international community.
    I should be grateful if you would arrange to have the text of the present letter distributed as a document of the General Assembly, under agenda items 39, 40 and 84, and of the Security Council.
    (Signed) Nasser AL-KIDWA
    Ambassador
    Permanent Observer of
    Palestine to the United Nations

    link to un.org

  29. yonah fredman
    June 30, 2014, 8:27 am

    Off topic- I’d like to comment on Tzvia Thier and Jonathan Katz. The comments on those threads has been cut off so i write here.

    I am certainly impressed by the strong feeling that is so apparent in Tzvia Thier’s entire demeanor, face and voice. Recognizing the intensity of injustice that exists, certainly in the South Hebron hills, the fact that she is so moved by this injustice is a tribute to her humanity. The overall effect is to give strength to the choir, the believers and to be dismissed by the opponents as over the top and not in control of her own emotions.

    Jonathan Katz is on to something. Preparing for the one state solution is something that will occur over the next generation or two and this will involve major shifts in the American Jewish communities’ relations to Israel and to each other. And it is true that this idea is heretical.

    The piece by Katz was a bit of a melange: everything but the kitchen sink, as if “the beginning of the redemption” concept and the problem of refugees from Africa can both be dealt with by merely mentioning them, which ends up as something shallow. But raising the topic is worthwhile, although Katz spends too much time patting himself on the back for being such a wise “the king has no clothes” little kid.

  30. James Canning
    June 30, 2014, 2:30 pm

    I think Israel can enjoy peace and great wealth within its “1967” borders. Full stop. Time to end the occupation.

    • rationalist
      July 1, 2014, 12:48 am

      That really isn’t a solution. First of all, why should Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza be cut off from their historic urban centers and the Israeli economy? Even today, Palestinians in the West Bank contribute to the economy of Israel. They work in Israeli-owned factories in the West Bank; many continue to be employed inside Israel.

      Also, how is a Palestinian state supposed to function? It would be discontinuous. Also, what about water rights? Israel depends on aquifers in the West Bank. Israel will never relinquish control of its water supply to a foreign power.

      Also, why do the 1967 borders have any legitimacy? Those borders were arrived at in the same fashion as the current borders – by forcing Palestinians off their land. 40% of Israelis are foreign-born, and 1 million Israelis live abroad. Israel’s creation is not ancient history, nor is it a country of people coming to terms with the conquest of their ancestors and nowhere else to go. These are still fresh immigrants occupying another people’s country with millions of still-living Palestinian refugees from 1948 onwards living under occupation or abroad.

      Palestine and Israel are not separable. They overlap entirely. The only solution is a single state with equality for everyone, as unlikely as that seems.

Leave a Reply