Trending Topics:

It’s always been a holy war

News
on 85 Comments

The recent murders of five people in a synagogue, and the subsequent shooting deaths of the two Palestinian perpetrators, has caused some to bemoan the emergence of a “holy war” in Palestine. To them, things suddenly seem worse – more darkly impressive – now that Jews have been killed in a synagogue. Their new line is that a “political” grievance can be resolved through “negotiation” but that a religious conflict cannot. Religious conflicts, it is implied, are zero-sum propositions. They are annihilationist undertakings. Kill, Kill, Kill or be killed.

People – anyone with an internet connection and an interest in the news – may be confused. They may ask, Who are these individuals who forecast new rigidness and zealotry in an old conflict? Who can possibly be arguing that the Palestine-Israel conflict will suddenly be transformed into… a zero-sum game? Can it be the ethnically cleansed, or the isolated and savagely put down? Is it the living members of the mostly dead families in Gaza? Or perhaps it is the incarcerated or newly homeless, the impoverished and racially agonized.

The people who grieve loudly about the emergence of a holy war in Palestine are the people who understand the place least. When it is liberal Zionists, it is because they understand themselves and their history least. The cultish adherents to Jewish exceptionalism cannot be expected to reflect seriously on the true content of their dogma and its clearly articulated goal of elimination and marginalization. When it is members of the Palestinian Authority, it is because they misunderstand their role and place in Palestinian history. They view their superficial secularism as a political qualification – while failing to understand that their interlocutors’ Messianism (Ben Gurion or the Messiah?) precludes politics.

In a very real way, the war waged on Palestinian lives and livelihoods has always been a holy war, irrespective of whether Palestinians drink whiskey or sahlab. Zionism is a religion that draws power through collectivism and idolatry. The religion’s purgatory, totalitarian logic moves believers to act – ruthlessly and single-mindedly. The war to purge Palestine and vanquish the Palestinians has always been a holy war. And the fight to abolish Zionism is an absolute one; equal rights is an absolute position.

So why is anyone talking about a “holy war?”

In Israel, the discussion of a conflict infused with Judaica’s symbols unfolding on a Jewish landscape is a real one. There is a religious war developing there, but it’s an internecine one. Like other fundamentalisms before it, Zionism has turned inward, schismatically, even as it continues to devour the Palestinians. In the broadest terms, it’s the 1948 Zionists – those who believe in ethnic cleansing and hope to see more of it – versus the 1967 Zionists – or those who believe in ethnic cleansing, but choose to pretend it was a mistake, or necessary, or something.

Is the new war important? Is it meaningful? From the Palestinian perspective it’s hard to care. The rape analogy has come to be a favorite one among liberal Zionists. They obliquely acknowledge the Nakba when they say: Even a child born of rape deserves to live.

But no one ever wonders whether the rapist wept during the act, particularly when it’s been ongoing. For about seventy years at this point.

Ahmed Moor

Ahmed Moor is a Palestinian-American who was born in the Gaza Strip. He is a PD Soros Fellow, co-editor of After Zionism and co-founder and CEO of liwwa.com. Twitter: @ahmedmoor

Other posts by .


Posted In:

85 Responses

  1. bilal a on December 2, 2014, 12:09 pm

    Liberal Progressive Zionism has made 2 ideas both moral and plausible for humanity in the next few decades

    1. Ethno-religious self determination (Israel the Jewish State)

    2. Ethno conflict resolution through separation ( the two state solution )

    3. Rejection of the One State Multicultural model ( eg Zimbawe and South Africa, disasters for both parties to the conflict );

    Interestingly these are exactly the lessons being learned, and now advocated, by white nationalists post Ferguson. Its been referred to as the multi-zion model, or zionism for all peoples., or simply White Zionism.

    “Richard Spencer, for example, has his eyes fixed on the far future (“It would be a state for the 21st century—or 22nd …”) and seeks only to plant the idea of a white ethnostate, taking 19th-century Zionism as his model. This century’s absurdity may be the next century’s popular cause,”

    No Exit by John Derbyshire
    http://takimag.com/article/no_exit_john_derbyshire/print#ixzz3KlFDV4Q5

    “For us “immigration” is a proxy for race. In that way, immigration can be good or bad: it can be a conquest (as it seems now) . . . or a European in-gathering, something like White Zionism.”

    Facing the Future as a Minority Richard Spencer
    http://www.npiamerica.org/the-national-policy-institute/blog/facing-the-future-as-a-minority

  2. just on December 2, 2014, 1:48 pm

    With all due respect, there is nothing “holy” about Occupation and ritual massacres of the Occupied indigenous people of Palestine. Netanyahu and his band of brothers/sisters made this manufactured “holy war”, just as they tried to liken Hamas to ISIS. Any fool can see that ISIS is more akin to JSIL.

    Nothing holy at all.

    • tree on December 2, 2014, 3:30 pm

      I doubt there is anything holy about any “holy war”. It’s an oxymoron.

      Holy wars are opportunities to succumb to negative passions and stereotypes , the ultimate us versus them replete with senseless violence. And in this case I think that Moor has a valid point that its always been a holy war, with Zionism as an ersatz religion on a crusader’s quest to “reclaim” the “Holy Land” from the “infidels” to give it to the true believers.

      • Mooser on December 2, 2014, 6:11 pm

        Whether Zionism itself is an ersatz religion or not, one real religion, Judaism, is gonna have one hell of a time disentangling itself from Zionism, when the time comes. That’s gonna take some real backing-and-filling.

    • bilal a on December 2, 2014, 3:41 pm

      Maybe Israel’s democracy is the problem, more democracy wont make it better

      “Kill the White People” Video from St. Louis Hammer Murder
      http://www.unz.com/isteve/kill-the-white-people-video-from-st-louis-hammer-murder/

  3. gracie fr on December 2, 2014, 3:13 pm

    Former President Shimon Peres has said that the law would “destroy Israel’s democratic status at home and abroad.” Netanyahu has insisted that he merely wants to require all Israel schools “to teach the history, culture, and customs of the Jewish people.” In fact, he clearly sees a conflict between democratic standards and Jewish national privileges, which, in his view, needs to be resolved in favor of the latter. The judiciary—governed by democratic standards, and unconstrained by a legally binding national purpose—is his real target. His unstated argument is that the courts advance an abstract concept of citizenship, which, unchecked, will erode the concept of Jewish national self-determination. “The judiciary, which recognizes Israel’s democratic side, will also have to recognize that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people,” he said, in a statement about the bill, at a recent cabinet meeting.

    If this law were, as Netanyahu mostly seems to want the public to believe, only about collective rights, it would be superfluous, irritating to the Arab minority, perhaps, but not inconsistent with democratic norms—and not even preëmptive of confederal relations with a future Palestine. Democracies everywhere protect their distinct national cultures and languages. The point is, however, that this new law is not really about conserving collective cultural rights, but rather about confirming individual legal privileges. Israel’s democratic freedoms are real, to be sure, but they coëxist with legalized inequalities between Jews and Arabs……..this bill is about writing into the law old Zionist provisions that have morphed into racist and theocratic practices. It will make judicial correctives nearly impossible.

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/netanyahus-nation-state?utm_source=tny&utm_campaign=generalsocial&utm_medium=facebook&mbid=social_facebook

    • seafoid on December 2, 2014, 3:23 pm

      “Former President Shimon Peres has said that the law would “destroy Israel’s democratic status at home and abroad.”

      Peres was one of the architects of YESHA, which destroyed Israel’s democratic status.
      The horse left the building a long time ago.

      And Peres never did anything to stop the rot.

  4. mcohen. on December 2, 2014, 4:41 pm

    ahmed moor says

    ” Zionism is a religion that draws power through collectivism and idolatry. ”

    please explain the “idolatry” part ……………….

    • tokyobk on December 2, 2014, 7:21 pm

      The State itself and all the trappings from flag to anthem.

      It’s in fact the classic designation in religious Jewish anti-Zionism, the State of Israel as a, in fact -the- Golden Calf.

      • mcohen. on December 3, 2014, 12:40 am

        tokyobk

        is your name ahmed moor ……no it is not, if I wanted a bullshit answer I would have pulled the chain

        now if ahmed from soros think would be kind enough to explain himself it would be much appreciated

      • Pretext on December 4, 2014, 1:19 am

        This is an open forum, and Tokyobk replied to your question with a sincere and straightforward answer. You don’t have to like the answer, but try to show a little more class.

    • ziusudra on December 3, 2014, 4:22 am

      Greetings mcohen,
      …..idolatry part……
      It was idolatry of King Josiah of Judea in 622BC to dethrone the Canaanite Father EL & 69 Elohim & install one of his Canaanite Sons, Yahweh as Monotheism. King Josiah went on worshipping Baal, another Son. All Semites in the ME, including the Shem Semites, worshipped the Canaanite Deities from at least 2750BC. It was the Judaic Clergy after 536BC in Babylon that waved de banner of Yahweh ever since. There is & never was an original concept of a Judaic Religion. Neither was there a Canaanite. It all was conceptualized by the Sumerians, an Euro/Indo People from the indus valley 6K BC.
      ziusudra
      PS World Jewry only knows what their Clergy have spouted since 536BC to secure their power base over them w/o Kingship! It worked even with Euro/Khazar converts ironically.

    • Shingo on December 3, 2014, 4:59 am

      please explain the “idolatry” part ……………….

      What’s do hard to understand? For Israel, the land has become the object of worship as opposed to God.

      • seafoid on December 3, 2014, 5:11 am

        They dumped what was important in the religion and adopted the land fetish instead.
        The rabbis drift over to the right and there is nobody to remind the people that what matters is morality.

        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2014/nov/28/binyamin-netanyahu-nationality-bill-at-odds-with-hebrew-bible

        “Through the biblical prophets, the people of Israel are regularly scolded for their forgetfulness, and lambasted for their failure to keep faith with the covenant they made with God. The prophets represented the self-critical vigilance of the Jewish people. They spoke the uncomfortable truth to power. Oh, how we need to listen to their voices once again.”

      • Mooser on December 3, 2014, 11:29 am

        “For Israel, the land has become the object of worship as opposed to God.”

        And of course, that “land” they worship exists only in their imagination. The actual place where they are, well, that land they don’t treat so good.

    • Pretext on December 3, 2014, 11:37 am

      To the other comments about land and state being objects of idolatry, I would add that the victim narrative is also part of the new golden calf.

      With a false prophet’s offer of absolution, it’s naturally seductive.

  5. ivri on December 2, 2014, 5:23 pm

    One misconception in the article is that while it is true that coming back to Zion had Judaic motives the hope of many then was to avoid a war with the people already living there – about half a million Palestinian Arabs. So “the war” part of it was not intended – the Crusaders style – and it only became that when things went wrong violence erupted because of the refusal of the locals to accept the newcomers as fellow residents due to suspicions and instigation by extremists. That also makes “the rape” analog inappropriate – losing does not automatically qualifies you to that status – the party in the wrong can lose too.

    • smithgp on December 2, 2014, 7:28 pm

      The “locals” refused to accept the newcomers as fellow residents because ever since the second aliyah the newcomers made clear their intention to wrest control of the country away from its indigenous inhabitants. This intention was evident in large ways in Zionist writing, which Palestinian intellectuals in Jaffa and Haifa became aware of; and in small ways in the expulsion of Palestinian fellahin from the growing number of Zionist settlements committed to “Hebrew labor” and (Hebrew) democracy. Sure, the “war part of it” may not have been intended: the Zionists may well have hoped that the Palestinians wouldn’t resist their dispossession. But the Palestinians did resist, and continue to do so to this day.

    • eljay on December 2, 2014, 8:27 pm

      >> ivreee: One misconception in the article is that while it is true that coming back to Zion had Judaic motives the hope of many then was to avoid a war with the people already living there – about half a million Palestinian Arabs. So “the war” part of it was not intended …

      Yeah, war is never intended when a group of people declares its intention to take possession of a populated geographic region and set up a supremacist state for themselves and other members of their collective.

      >> … and it only became that when things went wrong violence erupted because of the refusal of the locals to accept the newcomers as fellow residents …

      The locals rightly refused to accept the newcomers as supremacist overlords.

    • Kris on December 2, 2014, 8:52 pm

      @ivri, you write, “One misconception in the article is that while it is true that coming back to Zion had Judaic motives the hope of many then was to avoid a war with the people already living there – about half a million Palestinian Arabs. ”

      My impression is that you know already that this a lie, but in case you really are uninformed, I’d like to refer you to the many illuminating, fact-based comments that Hostage has made on Mondoweiss.

      ((MODERATOR–how can we view Hostage’s comments? Typing “Hostage” into the question box doesn’t bring up Hostage’s posts.))

      I wish Hostage were still posting, but since he isn’t, the following, from Hostage’s post
      on April 21, 2014 at 4:38 pm, informs us of how sincerely the Zionists wanted to be “fellow residents” with the Palestinians:

      “At some point Phil we have to suspend our sense of disbelief and anachronistic appeals to the Holocaust and accept the fact that the Zionist agenda in Palestine was based upon unabashed selfishness and militarism from day one. Truman and everyone in his generation had been warned about that fact when the long-suppressed King-Crane Commission report was finally published:

      “—it can hardly be doubted that the extreme Zionist Program must be greatly modified. For a “national home for the Jewish people” is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor ran the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the “civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine”

      – link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

      Dr. M. D. Eder, the acting Chairman of the Zionist Commission, testified to the Haycroft Inquiry that
      “In his opinion there can only be one National Home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish predominance as soon as the numbers of that race are sufficiently increased.”
      – — Palestine. Disturbances in May, 1921. Reports of the Commission of Inquiry with correspondence relating thereto .. (1921) page 57 link to archive.org

      “Over British government objections, Eder went on to serve two terms on the Zionist Organization Executive that was designated the Jewish Agency for Palestine. Fellow Executive Committee member Ze’ev Jabotinsky was even more bellicose in his demands to arm the Jews against the Arabs and employ an “Iron Wall” of bayonets to keep them at bay until all hope of resistance could be extinguished.”

      • annie on December 3, 2014, 5:20 pm

        kris, i miss hostage greatly. i wrote him recently to tell him so and replied saying he’s been otherwise engaged (good reason too) and says he plans on being back sometime this winter.

        the easiest way to find hostage (or any commenter archive, hopefully) is find any of his comments and click on his name at the top of his comment.

        or, if you google “mondoweiss commenter hostage” it will take you to his archive page here:

        http://mondoweiss.net/profile/hostage

    • RoHa on December 2, 2014, 11:12 pm

      “One misconception in the article is that while it is true that coming back to Zion had Judaic motives the hope of many then was to avoid a war with the people already living there – about half a million Palestinian Arabs. ”

      No, they just wanted to subjugate or expel the Palestinian Arabs.

      ‘So “the war” part of it was not intended – the Crusaders style – and it only became that when things went wrong violence erupted because of the refusal of the locals to accept the newcomers as fellow residents due to suspicions and instigation by extremists. ‘

      The extremists were most of the immigrant Zionist Jews. They entered the country with the avowed (loud and often) intent of taking over the country and setting up a state in which they would be top dogs, run for their benefit.

      They set up an alternative society, with institutions for the promotion of Jewish interests and from which locals were excluded.

      It is the Zionist immigrants who were to blame, not the locals.

    • Peter in SF on December 3, 2014, 12:50 am

      ivri, if I read you correctly, you seem to be suggesting that when a colonial power takes over some territory and allows mass immigration of people from outside that territory without the locals’ consent, then typically the locals accept the newcomers as fellow residents, instead of fighting against them. Where in the world, and when, has this happened?

    • bryan on December 3, 2014, 3:26 am

      Thanks for clearing that up for us Ivri: “the refusal of the locals to accept the newcomers as fellow residents due to suspicions and instigation by extremists” is the sole cause of the conflict. Ottoman Palestine was remarkably tolerant of individual immigrants, but the problem was not simply that they wished to make their homes in the land. Almost from the beginning of Zionism their was a refusal to integrate in the host society, a determination to establish parallel institutions, a desire to establish a monopoly of Hebrew Land and Hebrew Labour from which the natives would be excluded, and a steadfast ambition to claim the land for a Jewish state by expropriation and expulsion.

      Let’s try an analogy. The French have been remarkably welcoming of the influx of week-enders and retirees who have purchased rural cottagers, and indeed the enterprise has been a boost to the local economy. The Germans were remarkably accepting of British Nato forces who initially occupied their land. But if the English were to declare themselves a Norman state, or an Anglo-Saxon state, or even a Viking state (British North Sea oil having declined, Norwegian resources would be very handy) and transform ourselves from residents in these lands, to colonists intent upon a takeover of the state machinery, then there would be universal opposition from the French, the Germans and the Norwegians, and this would not require “instigation by extremists”. The links of the British aristocracy to Normandy are stronger (and more recent) than the links of north European Ashkenazim to the Levant. English institutions and culture are organically linked to France, especially in areas like the development in the middle ages of guilds and a rudimentary parliament, the wine and cloth trades, the modelling of the Stuart Divine Right monarchy on the French counterpart under the Louis, the close links between London, Edinburgh and Paris during the Enlightenment. The English language is far closer related to French that Yiddish is to Hebrew (or Aramaic). Notwithstanding all this, and the fact that England retained territory in France for centuries after 1066, the French would vigorously oppose an English takeover of their state. Hardly surprising that the Palestinians also did so, is it?

      • ziusudra on December 3, 2014, 4:34 am

        Greetings bryan,
        Beutifully & historically well said.
        If i may.
        Where would we be if the French Viking Normans didn’t invade in 1066AD language wise & give us French Latin? We’d still be speaking germanic dialects.
        7th C AD English:
        Ic beom un munic and ic beom gebisum sevon tide al daeg mit meinem gebrudem in sange and leornian.
        ziusudra

      • RoHa on December 3, 2014, 5:31 pm

        Ziusudra, I speak, read, and write Swedish, Danish, and German. Doesn’t seem to have done me any harm.

      • lonely rico on December 3, 2014, 7:32 pm

        @ Annie Robbins
        i miss hostage greatly
        As I miss Woody Tanaka

    • Shingo on December 3, 2014, 5:02 am

      the hope of many then was to avoid a war with the people already living there –

      That’s a bit of an oxymoron, seeing as they declared their intend to drive those already living there off the land and make way for a Jewish state. How else but through war was this to be achieved? Of course it was intended.

      and it only became that when things went wrong violence erupted because of the refusal of the locals to accept the newcomers as fellow residents due to suspicions and instigation by extremists.

      It turns out the suspicions were well founded. SInce Herzl, the Zionists founders had declared their intent to take the land by force and expel the existing population.

    • seafoid on December 3, 2014, 6:08 am

      “So “the war” part of it was not intended – the Crusaders style – and it only became that when things went wrong violence erupted because of the refusal of the locals to accept the newcomers as fellow residents due to suspicions and instigation by extremists. -”

      Homa Umigdal, Ivri

      Zionism was aggressive from the get go

      “Homa Umigdal is the origin, the prototype, the model and the mold of Israeli architecture, as well as , to a large extent, the Israeli city ”

      Sharton Rotbard, A civilian occupation eds Segal, Weizmann

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

      The objective of these settlements was to seize control of land that had been officially purchased by the KKL-JNF,[1] so to have as much Jewish-owned land as possible populated by Jews, particularly in remote areas, by establishing “facts on the ground.” These settlements would eventually be transformed into fortified agricultural settlements, and served for security purposes (as defences against Arab raiders) as well as creating contiguous Jewish-populated regions, which would later help determine the borders of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine.

      There is no nice way to rape a nation.

    • Mooser on December 3, 2014, 11:38 am

      “So “the war” part of it was not intended”

      Really, “ivri”? After all the Jews have been through, are we really that stupid? I thought we were supposed to be pretty smart, and certainly experienced at being “strangers in the land”. But gosh darn it, that +15 Ashkenazi intelligence was just not enough to see what was happening.
      And naturally, in our quest for “normalization” and “self-determination” there was no reason and no temptation to use the same tools as other “nations” use for the purpose.

      Who the hell are you trying to fool, “ivri”.

      • Mooser on December 3, 2014, 11:42 am

        I hope “ivri” doesn’t break into a chorus of “Flying Down to San Remo”

  6. Mooser on December 2, 2014, 6:15 pm

    “Even a child born of rape deserves to live.”

    Yes, but I don’t believe it’s customary to give the rapist custody, and make the victim pay child support payments to him. If I recall, an effort is made to catch the rapist and put him in jail, too.

    • jd65 on December 3, 2014, 12:26 am

      Hey Mooser: “‘Even a child born of rape deserves to live.’

      Yes, but I don’t believe it’s customary to give the rapist custody, and make the victim pay child support payments to him. If I recall, an effort is made to catch the rapist and put him in jail, too.”

      Yeah. And of course, just to be sure, Ahmed is attributing that attitude toward rape you quoted to “Liberal Zionists.” I very briefly met Ahmed Moor at the One State Conference he helped organize at Harvard in early 2012. Excellent conference, though I’m not sure what to say about this above article. But the rape analogy he touches on and that you picked up on is something I’ve thought about before. In my mind, this rape analogy is directly related to the “Israel has a right to exist” canard.

      What is someone really asking when they ask, “Don’t you think Israel has a right to exist?” They’re actually asking if it had a right to have been born. But the real question they should be asking is about Israel’s conception, not existence. Because if something is going to be “born,” it already exists. So they’re question is gobbledygook. But it’s gobbledygook by design. People who ask that question in the context of a conversation on Israel generally don’t truly want an answer. Rather, posing the “right to exist” question is a technique used (consciously or not…) to halt discussion when that conversation veers too close to getting at any true understanding or explanation of actual root causes of the conflict. And after the question is posed, if it doesn’t succeed in simply shutting down the discussion – and instead, someone actually points out the fact that Israel’s war crimes and occupation and racist practices shouldn’t be intentionally shrouded by some sophomorically existential or metaphysical discussion on “existence” rights – the person will likely simply haul out the anti-Semitism card.

      Even divorced from the question of Israel, the whole concept of the “right to exist” is juvenile sophistry. Rights don’t have anything to do with whether something exists or not. Something either exists or it doesn’t. The question of rights (which are generally held to be FOR PEOPLE, not for countries), apply to real world actions or processes that actually affect peoples’ lives; not to some nebulous philosophical conception of “existence” to be debated by Ivy League grad students over English beers during late-night bull sessions intended to impress the wide-eyed freshman babes (“Gosh Richard. You’re so smart! How do you know so much about philosophy and Israel and, like, laws and everything. Here’s my room key…”) Imagine asking if a particular person has the right to exist. It’s so absurd it scrambles the brain. There’s no ‘right’ for a person to exist. He/She exists. That’s it. Period. A person has been born. Full stop.

      Now, if a baby was conceived through a rape, the question of rights enter in terms of the manner of conception: ie: a rapist does not have the right to rape. But the fact of the baby’s ‘existence’ doesn’t lend any ‘rights’ to the rapist. It’s beyond disgusting to imagine a rapist pointing to the baby conceived during his rape after it’s born, and saying, “Do you think this baby has a right to exist,” as if somehow since the baby has a ‘right to exist’ his rape should not considered a crime, or the mere fact of the existence of the baby mitigates the heinousness of his crime, or that because the baby exists his punishment should be lessened. It’s grotesque, perverted logic. Yet this is what Israel does when it beats its detractors over the head w/ the “Does Israel have a right to exist” question. It’s truly disgusting. The manner of creation (acts by human beings) can be subjected to questions of rights, but not the actual fact of existence. So asking the question “Do you think Israel has the right to exist,” or simply stating in a discussion that “Israel has the right to exist,” is meaningless unless you’re planning on going into the details of the formation of Israel.

      Zionism is the rapist. Palestine is the Mother. Israel is the baby. Zionism deserves life in prison (sorry guys/gals, I’m against the death penalty without exception). Palestine deserves massive reparations/settlements (pun intended). And Israel… Well, Israel is still a baby. Let its mother decide how to raise it.

      • annie on December 3, 2014, 5:33 pm

        jd65, i agree it’s a hasbara concoction. there is no “right of existence” for countries (that i know of). if someone claims there is ask them the name of the right or where it’s written down.

  7. eljay on December 2, 2014, 6:48 pm

    The rape analogy has come to be a favorite one among liberal Zionists. They obliquely acknowledge the Nakba when they say: Even a child born of rape deserves to live.

    Is Israel supposed to be the child born of rape? Well, I agree: The child should live.

    And if he grows up to be an honest and law-abiding person, treat him as such.

    But if he grows up to be a thief, an oppressor, an abuser and a supremacist, hold him accountable for every one of his acts of injustice and immorality.

  8. RoHa on December 2, 2014, 10:57 pm

    “The rape analogy has come to be a favorite one among liberal Zionists. They obliquely acknowledge the Nakba when they say: Even a child born of rape deserves to live.”

    Zionists must go to the same School of Bad Analogies as the dimmer Christian apologists.

    A child and a state are so different that no analogy can be drawn.

    A child is a concrete being.
    A state is a political arrangement.
    A child has an individual stream of consciousness. It is self-aware.
    There is no reason to suspect a state has such a stream.
    For a child “life” requires the continuation of a specific set of biological processes.
    States do not have any biological processes.

    • oldgeezer on December 4, 2014, 5:59 pm

      zionists try to humanize the state while dehumanizing actual humans. It’s one of the many ways to deflect critcism of the state.

  9. MHughes976 on December 3, 2014, 3:10 pm

    Well, I think Ahmed is not directly arguing against, but somewhat deflecting attention from, the point being advocated stridently by those who complain that religious war has come. The murder of rabbis in a synagogue is not just a taking of lives but the making of a theological point – really, that Judaism, not just Zionism, is evil, indeed demonic. This is quite contrary to our view that real, authentic Judaism is a well that lies too deep for political taint and that when recruited to support Zionism it has always become inauthentic. I fear that it is the emergence of something new or at least something more starkly terrifying than it used to be. Of course theological representation of Islam as demonic is already commonplace in the West.

    • Mooser on December 3, 2014, 4:06 pm

      ” The murder of rabbis in a synagogue is not just a taking of lives but the making of a theological point – really, that Judaism, not just Zionism, is evil, indeed demonic.”

      Yes, the thorough investigation, and the trial of the defendants brought that all out into the open, didn’t it? After that, there’s very little question about the motivations of the defendants.
      Also, didn’t several organization declare responsibility for the attacks, and state their reasons?
      Yup, very little question about the theological point, is there?.

      • mcohen. on December 3, 2014, 9:19 pm

        Mooser says

        “trial of defendants”

        What trial asshole

    • mcohen. on December 3, 2014, 4:19 pm

      MHughes976 says

      “I fear that it is the emergence of something new or at least something more starkly terrifying than it used to be”

      you make some valid points but no matter how you look at it at the the end of the day it means that imans and there scholars deserve the same fate especially those that preach hate and incitement.
      transference of trauma as a method of healing is part of what zionism is in response to the attacks jews have suffered in the past 200 hundred years and therefore makes zionism essential to judaism

      i advocate the removal of the m.b in jordan as a suitable response to the attack on the 4 rabbi,s at har nof

      • seafoid on December 3, 2014, 5:48 pm

        Zionism is nihilism so it’s hardly essential to Judaism.
        Drinking yourself to death is not essential to anyone either.

        Israelis are lost in shoah trauma.

        “no matter how you look at it at the the end of the day it means that imans and there (sic) scholars deserve the same fate especially those that preach hate and incitement. ”

        I’m sure Jewish hoteliers in Jerusalem wouldn’t agree with you. Intercommunal violence usually results in falling hotel occupancy, you know.

      • oldgeezer on December 4, 2014, 12:41 am

        There is no moral or philosphical difference between you and those who incite attacks on Israeli civilians from the other side. As I have said many times the Israeli moral highground is actually a gutter.

      • American on December 4, 2014, 8:27 am

        ” transference of trauma as a method of healing is part of what zionism is in response to the attacks jews have suffered in the past 200 hundred years and therefore makes zionism essential to judaism – —-mcohen

        I have some trauma I need to transfer.
        Tell me where you are so I can go shoot you in the head and steal your home in order to heal myself.

        But thanks for reinforcing what we already knew about zionism.

    • seafoid on December 3, 2014, 5:32 pm

      I don’t agree with that take on the synagogue killings. Tit for tat is about soft underbelly targets, not theological sea change.

      Israel changed the rules in Jerusalem and those 4 unfortunates paid the price

      This picture was produced by Israeli police to show Jews who is in charge in the city

      Palestinians also saw it. A dead Palestinian like an animal. And some people decided to take action and do it to the other side.
      Nothing more, nothing less.

      There is nothing sacred in Jerusalem under Zionism.

    • annie on December 3, 2014, 5:38 pm

      i advocate the removal of the m.b in jordan as a suitable response to the attack on the 4 rabbi,s at har nof

      excuse me?

    • annie on December 3, 2014, 5:40 pm

      The murder of rabbis in a synagogue is not just a taking of lives but the making of a theological point – really, that Judaism, not just Zionism, is evil, indeed demonic.

      mhughes have you gone off your rocker? you have no idea what the killers were thinking. this is nothing more than your own speculation.

      • seafoid on December 3, 2014, 5:59 pm

        I find this elevation of Jews in a grubby colonial struggle over rights to be deeply problematic.

        It’s about the abuse of power and Israeli impunity and if certain Palestinians want to kill Israelis and don’t care about dying in the process because their lives aren’t going anywhere what does being Jewish have to do with the dead ? Are Jews supposed to be somehow immune from the carnage ?

        There was a bot in the Guardian when the 3 teenagers were kidnapped saying Jews couldn’t bear the news since it reminded them of Europe and wasn’t supposed to happen in Israel. Why not? The system is based on brutal violence. why would Jews be immune from it? Because they don’t eat shellfish ? Because they read the Torah ? Or because God loves them more than other people (even though she never really showed it) ?

        If the IDF can’t defend Jews blame the Zionist leadership for excessive risk taking.

      • mcohen. on December 3, 2014, 6:22 pm

        annie

        mhughes is correct ..

        what were they thinking……no, more important what were the people who sent them thinking,the calculations they did …what could they they get away with.

      • annie on December 4, 2014, 12:21 am

        no, more important what were the people who sent them thinking

        mcohen, why do you assume they were “sent” by anyone? don’t you think 2 cousins are capable of pulling off a crime of this nature? the advantage of the sort of speculation, no different than netanyahu claiming “hamas” kidnapped the teens, is that in some sick mind it then justifies/incites, demands, the collective punishment of more and more people. there’s no evidence anyone was behind the plot.

        mhughes is correct ..

        what were they thinking

        mhughes didn’t ask what they were thinking, he presumed to know.

      • Peter in SF on December 4, 2014, 3:16 am

        seafoid writes:

        There was a bot in the Guardian when the 3 teenagers were kidnapped saying Jews couldn’t bear the news since it reminded them of Europe and wasn’t supposed to happen in Israel.

        And of course, it didn’t happen in Israel, it happened in what the Government of Israel calls disputed territory whose future status is subject to negotiation.

      • Mayhem on December 4, 2014, 8:00 am

        I certainly know what the mother of one of the killers was thinking as she publicly celebrates her son being a shahid.

    • RoHa on December 3, 2014, 7:04 pm

      MHughes, Mooser and Annie are quite correct in pointing out our ignorance of the motives of the killers. On the other hand, you are not given to making foolish comments. Are you, perhaps, suggesting that the murder of the rabbis has that theological implication regardless of the motives or intentions of the killers?

    • MHughes976 on December 4, 2014, 4:26 am

      Trials and legal proceedings may have brought some things out into the open but aren’t indispensable for that purpose. We all knew what Breivik’s actions meant before he told us at unnecessary length in court. Public actions are always a kind of performance and we can understand them, sometimes all too easily, in the way that we would understand something in a theatre.
      If you accept the idea that something is evil to an almost superhuman degree – demonic – then you will think of taking extraordinary steps, beyond ordinary moral law, to destroy that evil thing or at least to expose it for what it is. The well-known risk is that you invite seven devils into your own mind.
      It’s said that the police chief of Braintree Massachusetts on arriving at the scene of murder supposedly perpetrated by Sacco and Vanzetti exclaimed ‘Whoever did this knew no God!’, so irreligion as well as religion can excite this kind of horror. And can lead to panic and abandonment of justice, which is what some people say was inflicted on S and V.
      The idea that we are dealing with a ‘demonic’ force should always be questioned very intensely.

      • American on December 4, 2014, 9:21 am

        ” The well-known risk is that you invite seven devils into your own mind. -“”…….Hughes

        I think what irritates me most about most ‘religiously moral’ is that they seem most concerned about the ‘moral risk’ to ‘themselves’ for one thing.
        I’ve never been able to get one of those types who say violence is ‘always’ wrong when dealing with others violence to answer me on what is ‘most moral’.
        Refraining from violence against those who use it on other people while continuing to urge peace and pray about it in the face of all ‘rational’ evidence that that is not going to work or happen—-or using violence to end violence against innocents.

      • MHughes976 on December 4, 2014, 12:43 pm

        My ‘seven devils’ was only way of saying ‘mentally unbalanced fanaticism of your own’, which is certainly a threat to other people as well to one’s own immortal soul, should there be one.
        My previous comment crossed with RoHa’s. I would think that when we say (truly) that actions speak louder than words – and we say this as a matter of common sense not because we have read Jacques Derrida – we must mean that some actions carry their meaning on their face and do not need words in any form – confessions, avowals and the like – to make their point to us, though of course that point can still be discussed, questioned and rejected in all sorts of ways.
        Legal proceedings are by no means the only way of getting an understanding of what actions mean – and when people start explaining themselves in court the result may be a repetitious rigmarole that tells us nothing (I thought this of Breivik – don’t know why he was allowed so much grandstanding) or confuses us. Political theatre is to be understood as we would try to understand a drama.
        I think of other murders of religious figures. I don’t know whether the people who murdered Oscar Romero were genuinely believing Catholics but they certainly came from a culture where priests are respected. That they chose to kill Romero in the course of a church service made the point that, in their interpretation of things, priests who make friends with communists and atheists cease to be priests. Their action said that louder than a thousand words. Even if they never articulated that point they still conveyed it and I’m sure Romero’s death sent a certain shiver down the spines of every left-wing priest in Latin America.
        The knights who murdered Becket no doubt had several reasons for killing him in his cathedral rather than in the street but one reason must have been to make the point that this was an attack not just on an individual but on an overweening and arrogant Church – which had, in their view of things, no right to disrupt and near overthrow the political order for the sake of privileges and immunities for their own ministers: we might think of churches’ protection of criminals in our own time. This is what their action meant and we can understand it even if they never made any verbal statement and even though more than 8 centuries have gone by. I mention this because it’s an example of a good point unjustly and horrifyingly made.

      • annie on December 4, 2014, 4:11 pm

        The knights who murdered Becket no doubt had several reasons for killing him in his cathedral rather than in the street but one reason must have been to make the point that this was an attack not just on an individual but on an overweening and arrogant Church – which had, in their view of things, no right to disrupt and near overthrow the political order for the sake of privileges and immunities for their own ministers: we might think of churches’ protection of criminals in our own time. This is what their action meant and we can understand it even if they never made any verbal statemen

        mhughes, there is so much difference here than claiming “The knights who murdered Becket….really, that Christianity, not just the arrogant church, is evil, indeed demonic.’ – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/always-been-holy/comment-page-1#comment-727285

        why the difference in your analysis. why not speculate ‘the synagogue attack was not just on the individuals but on an overweening and arrogant Zionism – which had, in their view of things, no right to disrupt and near overthrow the political order, for the sake of privileges and immunities for their own ministers who now seek to control Al Aqsa?: we might think of zionisms’ protection of criminals in our time?’

        it’s not merely your ptv that one is justified to speculate why another commits a crime, it is that you have chosen a motivation for the killer “judaism …. is evil, indeed demonic” divorced of any of the sort of speculation, or political rationale, you’ve superimposed on beckets killers. were beckets killers “mentally unbalanced fanaticism “?

        why the disparity in analysis?

      • annie on December 4, 2014, 4:27 pm

        That they chose to kill Romero in the course of a church service made the point that, in their interpretation of things, priests who make friends with communists and atheists cease to be priests. Their action said that louder than a thousand words. Even if they never articulated that point they still conveyed it and I’m sure Romero’s death sent a certain shiver down the spines of every left-wing priest in Latin America.

        iow, you don’t think That they chose to kill Romero in the course of a church service made the point that, in their interpretation of things, Christianity was evil and demonic?

        nor do you think That they chose to kill the Rabbis in the course of a church service made the point that, in their interpretation of things, rabbis who make friends with the temple institute who aim to blow up the mosque and zionist politicians who help them cease to be rabbis? Their action didn’t say that louder than a thousand words, to you, but it was quite simple to superimpose a political motive to romeros killers.

        why the disparity? the killer was a shop owner. why do you assume he thought judaism was evil and demonic. maybe he just didn’t want all those religious fruitcakes who have come to power in the knesset killing so many palestinians and allowing them to hang bus drivers and settlers to run over little girls and soldiers invading and throwing teargas inside the al aqsa compound to make way for the zionist government to take over the mosque? why?

        it seems to me you’ve relegated a very narrow option for the motivations of killers of the rabbis. maybe you think palestinians are mentally limited (unlike other killers you’ve mentioned) and just motivated solely/purely by religious fanaticism.

      • MHughes976 on December 4, 2014, 6:57 pm

        Well, annie, the attack on the rabbis certainly was – who could doubt it, or demand words to confirm it? – an attack on Zionism and its overweening arrogance. But it had religious symbolism as well – are words really needed to confirm that?
        If attackers and victims in this sort of religious-political theatre are of the same religious culture (Romero, Becket) then the attack screams for a distinction to be made between authentic/inauthentic within the group. If the attack comes from outside, from people who have to strain their eyes to bursting point in order (it is not so difficult for us in the West) to see any form of the religion in question that stands up for them and moreover are stared in the face every day by forms that call for their suffering and humiliation, then nothing about their attack conveys that distinction.
        I should just say to American that I am trying to oppose, not foster, demonising people on theological grounds – God knows enough of that has been done to the Palestinians.
        If I haven’t answered RoHa’s question properly – intentions are slippery things in many ways and loads of words may not clarify them. I think I’m saying that the meaning of actions is sometimes absolutely clear when intentions are not.

      • annie on December 5, 2014, 1:59 am

        I am trying to oppose, not foster, demonising people on theological grounds

        but you can’t oppose it without first fostering the notion it was done on theological grounds.

        If attackers and victims in this sort of religious-political theatre are of the same religious culture (Romero, Becket) then the attack screams for a distinction to be made between authentic/inauthentic within the group

        no it doesn’t. you’ve stripped all political motive from the palestinian killers and determined unilaterally they were impelled by religious fanaticism and the demonization of judaism. what’s next? islam made them do it? when israel bombs mosques and killed scores of worshipers is it because of fanatical judaism and they have determined islam is evil? have you made that argument yet?

    • American on December 4, 2014, 8:43 am

      ” The murder of rabbis in a synagogue is not just a taking of lives but the making of a theological point – really, that Judaism, not just Zionism, is evil, indeed demonic. This is quite contrary to our view that real, authentic Judaism is a well that lies too deep for political taint and that when recruited to support Zionism it has always become inauthentic. I fear that it is the emergence of something new or at least something more starkly terrifying than it used to be – ……. Hughes

      I fear that those of you obsessed with religion and who have made ‘theology’ their life’s cause, job or hobby, and see and inject religion into e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g will make things even worse than they are.

      • American on December 4, 2014, 8:13 pm

        I am sure Hughes your heart is in the right place.

        ” But it had religious symbolism as well – are words really needed to confirm that?

        Speak only for yourself on what it symbolized…to you.
        Attacking the rabbis while they were praying symbolized nothing to me but the attackers thinking they wouldn’t be armed or expecting it and therefore easier targets.

  10. mcohen. on December 4, 2014, 12:38 am

    annie says

    mcohen, why do you assume they were “sent” by anyone?

    1.i base my assumption on the fact that the timing of the attack coincided with a rabbinical congress in new york…..that it was intended as a message to that particular section of orthodox judaism.

    2.the use of axes to chop off the heads of people is also no coincidence,whatever there motives one thing is clear…………there bodies were not returned.

    3.as i base my assumptions purely on news reports i could be wrong but this is not the first time attacks on rabbi,s have taken place…..from what i have been told the attack in mumbai was horrific.beyond belief.

    • annie on December 4, 2014, 1:30 am

      the timing of the attack coincided with a rabbinical congress in new york

      so why not ask who/why lynched Youssef al-Ramouni on the eve of that conference? why all the incitement for weeks leading up to it? (see here as one tiny example http://mondoweiss.net/2014/11/videos-jerusalem-skunk ) and what the heck is it w/people like you who count everything from the day that conveniences you ignoring the weeks and weeks of crap that came first? we do have archives you know. death did not begin with the synagogue killings. and israelis did not get run over by cars until AFTER 10 got run over by settlers last year. how bout shuttin’ tfu ‘n creating quiet the month before your oh so important like we all follow this crap rabbinical congress in new york if it’s so GD important to you mcohen? did it ever occur to you the blatant incitement, murder and mayhem by settlers israel PRIOR to that conference was intended to justify the clamp down on jerusalem/palestine? or are you floating the idea israel is not that powerful, would never do that, act only in response (triple yawn zzzzz) and is not the most powerful, manipulative and cause of effect in this mess? do you mean w/all that backing and support israel merely responds? yeah, dude. wtf.

    • seafoid on December 4, 2014, 4:06 am

      “the use of axes to chop off the heads of people is also no coincidence,whatever there motives one thing is clear” –

      Apparently there was no white phosphorous available in downtown Jerusalem that day, MCohen, so a kosher murder was unfortunately not possible/

      • oldgeezer on December 4, 2014, 7:07 am

        Apparently civilized people prefer to see entire families turned into a pink mist and miscellaneous body parts.

        I can do without current Israeli contributions to civilization I think.

  11. mcohen. on December 4, 2014, 3:06 am

    annie

    are you saying that the murder of the 4 rabbi, s was justified, is that what this site is about

    • annie on December 4, 2014, 3:19 am

      i just asked you 7 questions. you answer me first. i owe you nothing.

      it means that imans and there scholars deserve the same fate …. transference of trauma as a method of healing is part of what zionism is in response to the attacks jews have suffered in the past 200 hundred years

      your hypocrisy is astonishing. what nerve you have asking me if i justify a massacre after you posted this??? seriously, are you completely deaf dumb and blind?

      you answer me first. i owe you nothing.

    • jd65 on December 4, 2014, 11:59 am

      mcohen writes: “annie… are you saying that the murder of the 4 rabbi, s was justified, is that what this site is about…”

      I won’t presume to speak for Annie or this site.

      But for myself, I see your question as quite rude and plainly disingenuous. It reminds me of someone else’s comment from an earlier article here at MW. The commenter stated that one of Steven Salaita’s tweets showed that he wanted all the Jewish settlers in the West Bank to be murdered. Anyone taking more than 30 seconds to read Salaita’s tweet, place its single sentence in context, and honestly think about it knows this isn’t what he meant by his tweet.

      In my opinion, mcohen, you’ve done the same thing here w/ your comment/question directed at Annie. You plainly know your question is ridiculous and rude. You are as transparent as the day is long. You are an internet troll residing in Hasbarastan. And you are doing no favors for the Jews, Arabs, Palestinians, Israelis, or any other decent honest people who are trying to truly understand this conflict and help it be somewhat resolved. You sir/madam, are the problem.

      • Mayhem on December 4, 2014, 10:24 pm

        Is it so hard to answer this question civilly:

        Annie, would you say that the murder of the 4 rabbis can be justified?

        instead of getting into the usual bullying tactics deployed with defenders of Israel?

      • annie on December 5, 2014, 1:34 am

        civility? ha ha read this: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/organizations-universities-amendment

        mayhem, prior to mcohen asking me that question he claimed the killers were “sent”, basically justifying collective punishment, he said he based his assumption on “the fact that the timing of the attack coincided with a rabbinical congress in new york”

        hence, i asked him 7 questions.

        they were:

        1. why not ask who/why lynched Youssef al-Ramouni on the eve of that conference?

        2. why all the incitement for weeks leading up to it? tiny example http://mondoweiss.net/2014/11/videos-jerusalem-skunk

        3. what the heck is it w/people like you who count everything from the day that conveniences you ignoring the weeks and weeks of crap that came first?

        4. how bout shuttin’ tfu ‘n creating quiet the month before your oh so important like we all follow this crap rabbinical congress in new york if it’s so GD important to you mcohen?

        5. did it ever occur to you the blatant incitement, murder and mayhem by settlers israel PRIOR to that conference was intended to justify the clamp down on jerusalem/palestine?

        6. or are you floating the idea israel is not that powerful, would never do that, act only in response (triple yawn zzzzz) and is not the most powerful, manipulative and cause of effect in this mess?

        7. do you mean w/all that backing and support israel merely responds?

        i will address mcohen’s question (and yours) if and when he addresses mine. and i will do that however i want.

  12. Mayhem on December 4, 2014, 7:57 am

    Who started this holy war? By how many centuries does Islam with its in-built antipathy toward dhimmis (Christians and Jews) predate Zionism?

    This discussion which should openly include full consideration of Islam manages somehow to avoid any direct mention of it!

    • seafoid on December 4, 2014, 12:05 pm

      Zionism started it Mayhem. there is no nice way to dispossess a people. When it’s your turn to be shafted don’t come whining here, please.

    • eljay on December 4, 2014, 12:52 pm

      >> Mayhemeee: Who started this holy war? By how many centuries does Islam with its in-built antipathy toward dhimmis (Christians and Jews) predate Zionism?

      WTF?! How on earth does “Islam with its in-built antipathy toward dhimmis” justify the creation of an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine?

      • annie on December 5, 2014, 2:03 am

        eljay, mayhem is trying to answer you but he can’t find a way to do it without linking to islamophobes and breaking our comment policy wrt nakba denial. let’s see if he can figure out how to get his message across without the help of robert spencer.

      • eljay on December 5, 2014, 9:00 am

        >> Annie Robbins: eljay, mayhem is trying to answer you but he can’t find a way to do it without linking to islamophobes and breaking our comment policy wrt nakba denial. let’s see if he can figure out how to get his message across without the help of robert spencer.

        Thanks, Annie. Ultimately, there’s no just or moral way to defend supremacism – although Zio-supremacists sure do put a lot of effort into doing just that for their particular brand of supremacism – but it’ll be interesting to see what he comes up with. :-)

    • jd65 on December 4, 2014, 9:26 pm

      I hear you Mayhem. You can find Islam’s, as you put it, “in-built antipathy toward Christians and Jews,” all through the Qur’an. After actually reading it, it’s easy to see that Allah and Muhammad feel Christians and Jews are much lesser beings than Muslims, and that Muslims believe Jews and Christians will go to Hell.

      Like in 2:62 where it states, “The Muslim believers, the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabians – all those who believe in God and the Last Day and do good – will have their rewards with their Lord. No fear for them, nor will they grieve.”

      Or like in 2:136 where it states, “So you believers, say, ‘We believe in God and what was sent down to us and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and what was given to Moses, Jesus, and all the prophets by their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them.”

      Or like in 3:113 where it states, “But they are not all alike. There are some among the People of the Book who are upright, who recite God’s revelations during the night, who bow down in worship, who believe in God and the Last Day, who order what is right and forbid what is wrong, who are quick to do good deeds. These people are among the righteous and they will not be denied the reward for whatever good deeds they do; God knows exactly who is conscious of Him.”

      Oh. Wait…

      • Mayhem on December 5, 2014, 9:55 pm

        It’s all too convenient to dismiss what people have to say because of who they happen to be. It’s a giant cop out to cut the discussion by resorting to accusations of islamophobia.

        Let me say that I could well post a heap of suras from the koran that abrogate those posted by jd65. Also I don’t need the expositions of Robert Spencer to make my point – there are many others who are prepared to call a spade a spade and not be suffocated by inane political correctness.
        The mere foundation of the state of Israel puts the Islamic holy book, Qur’an, in doubt. Despite the fact the God is supposed to be angry with them, the Jews have their own state. At this point a conflict appears – a conflict between reality and sort of an illusion stated by the Qur’an.
        http://www.jewishmag.com/86mag/islamzionism/islamzionism.htm
        The state of Israel came into this like a slap on the face of every Muslim. Here were the Jews, a despised people whom God had abandoned, whose very existence had depended so heavily on the toleration extended to them by Muslim states, turning up in force and receiving at the hands of the infidel powers a land that had been part of the Islamic umma for almost fourteen hundred years

      • RoHa on December 6, 2014, 4:30 am

        And resorting to theological speculations is a convenient way of dismissing the monumental injustice the Zionists committed, so as to pretend that there is no moral reason for opposition to Israel.

      • jd65 on December 6, 2014, 1:45 pm

        Hey Mayhem. I’ll do my best to skip the nonsense and get to the point. You write,

        “Let me say that I could well post a heap of suras from the koran that abrogate those posted by jd65.”

        Please do that. And my reason for wanting you to do so are briefly explained below.

        I’m not religious. I don’t believe in God. But I am interested in the Palestine Conflict. And since a large enough portion of those who speak on the subject in the media (read: a lot of what gets disseminated to the public) portray Islam and the Qur’an as “inherently violent” or “inherently Jew-hating,” I felt the need to check it out for myself.

        The first time I read through the Qur’an, honestly, I was mainly bored. Talk about repetitive! Sheeeeeesh. To my mind, it seemed like a pretty generic rehashing of pretty standard (frustrating and crazy) Judeo-Christian tropes. But the Jew-hating angle didn’t particularly jump out at me. This was a couple years ago.

        As we all know here, the Islam/Qur’an detractors have certainly not toned it down (to say the least). So a couple weeks ago I decided to read it again; this time taking notes on passages that I personally felt might show the Qur’an/Islam either in a particularly positive, or negative, light. Whichever the case may be.

        I’m only about a fifth of the way through, but so far I’ve found nothing that specifically states Jews and Christians are to be “hated” for simply being Jewish or Christian, but have repeatedly found passages which state very clearly, and others somewhat clearly, that the Old & New Testament, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, etc… are to to be considered in the same line as Mohammad and The Qur’an. And that the people who follow those teachings/practices (Jews & Christians) are given the same rewards as Muslims.

        This is all kinda weird for me to be dealing with since, as I wrote above, I’m not religious. I see this conflict as a geo-political one w/ vague, relatively unrelated religious crap thrown into the mix by opportunists desperate to support their political position. Not as a religious one w/ vague, relatively unrelated geo-political crap thrown into the mix. But since the monkey wrench of religious slant/spin is consistently into the narrative, particularly the consistent demonization of Islam in the media by strict Israel supporters, I felt forced to deal with it.

        So Mayhem, I’d be interested to consider some your selections from the Qur’an which you feel abrogate the ones I’ve posted. Since you wrote that you could “well post a heap of suras from the koran,” it sounds like this should be pretty easy and quick for you to do. But please don’t post entire suras, as I’m sure you’re aware that a sura is an entire chapter. Posting a few representative verses from a sura, as I’ve done above, should likely suffice to make your point. And of course, I’ll read them carefully and place them in context.

        I’m using the Oxford University Press, Oxford World Classics version, reprinted 2010. Please let us know the version you are quoting from. Thanks…

      • just on December 6, 2014, 3:16 pm

        Thank you very much, jd65.

        Mayhem: “The mere foundation of the state of Israel puts the Islamic holy book, Qur’an, in doubt”.

        That’s crazy- talk, even for you.

      • eljay on December 6, 2014, 3:53 pm

        >> Mayhemeee: The state of Israel came into this like a slap on the face of every Muslim.

        The state of Israel – conceived, established, maintained and expanded as a supremacist “Jewish State” primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews – has been a slap on the face of every Palestinian man, woman and child terrorized, ethnically cleansed, dispossessed, oppressed, tortured and/or murdered by Zio-supremacist Jews.

        And Zio-supremcists have been getting off on this for over sixty years.

  13. gamal on December 6, 2014, 12:45 pm

    “to those who were unjustly expelled from their homes only because they said, “God is our Lord.” Had it not been for God’s repelling some people through the might of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which God is very often worshipped would have been utterly destroyed. God shall certainly help those who help Him. He is All-powerful and Majestic.”

    well thats 22.40 what abrogates that or is itself an abrogation? M’hem, has no idea what naskh is, it is of course disputed, there are various kinds all relating to fiqh, or the study of proofs, forensic proofs, but nowhere does any one except the ignorant or stupid or malicious claim that spiritual or moral or exhorting statements like those quoted by jd can be abrogated, there are voluminous books written on the subject, all very tedious for those not that way inclined like Kitab al kharaj and of course Usul al Jassas, Abu Bakr al Jassas encyclopedic rendering of his teachers, a Hanafi jurist who came after the eponymous Shafi’i, al Kharki’s lectures, so the nasikh w’al mansukh is a legal matter, as to disproving the Quran, do you think history is over and that having a state is peculiar favour bestowed by God, states are rather mundane nasty little things we have many for all the good it does us, and as to God being angry with Jews, have you read your own book? God must love Christians and their many storied states, you sound insane and deeply deluded sadly you are not alone.

    • jd65 on December 7, 2014, 12:54 am

      “…do you think history is over and that having a state is peculiar favour bestowed by God[?] states are rather mundane nasty little things we have many for all the good it does us, and as to God being angry with Jews, have you read your own book?”

      Amen, gamal.

Leave a Reply