Is Israel digging itself into another hole by forcibly removing settlers?

Great Debates
61

MC,

We go off on a tangent methinks, but not the only one in this thread …

You write about rewriting history?! In response to a reasonable statement that the origins of Arab-Jewish conflict are complex and not entirely a reaction to Zionism, you stated

Now that’s rewriting history! There was in fact lots of Arab antisemitism before Zionism. Start off with Mohammad himself who, like many before and after, initially thought that Jews would flock to his new revelation and reacted with hatred when Jewish tribes that had been his allies made it clear that they would not be followers/converts. In Palestine Jews were kicked out of Jerusalum on many occassions and subject to severre restrictions again and again. The dhimmi status was designed to discriminate, just at a level above “convert or die” that was afforded many so-called “pagan” faiths and to Jews in many Christian lands. Do not ignore history because it does not fit your agenda. The causes of Arab anti-Jewish feelings are complex and multi-factorial. Currently it gets mixed up with anti-Westernism, a perception of Zionism as colonialism, a sense of having status taken away, some real human rights violations, some fueling of the conflict by Arab leadership that relishes having a distraction from their own abuse of their peoples, Hatfield and McCoy style blood feuding, and the long-standing antisemitism. Ignore any factor and you do a disservice to understanding.

62

Yes,the Jews were kicked out of Jerusalem svereal times, but not by the Arabs but by the Byzantines and the crusaders.

DSeid, being a history major I have many problems with the whole movement to publicize Dhimmis as it is funded by a pro-Israel political group and then used for political purposes. It is a very poor example of antisemtism as Jewish Dhimmis were generally treated better than any other kind of Dhimmi (Dhimmi has the meaning ‘protected person’ and comes from the passage where Mohammed tells his followers to respect ‘the people of the book’, ie.e Christians and Jews).

http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/itl/denise/dhimmi.htm

63

Dhimmi means protected person in an Orwellian 1984ish doublespeak kind of way.

Some online sources, with references included, about dhimmis and Arab treatment of Jews:

http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_lecture_10oct2002.htm

http://www.dhimmi.com/dhimmi_overview.htm

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Jews_in_Arab_lands_(gen).html (Biased source but well referenced)

Being a history major gives you the freedom to ignore parts of it you do not like? Or to not retract false statements? Care to document the funding of the Dhimmi organization or to explain why its funding means that its material is untrue? (or is this another cite request that will be just ignored?) Certainly they are not the only source of information on this subject. Once again no one denies that Islamic rule was better than Christian rule or that there were periods of tolerance and relative good times for Jews under Islamic rule … as long as they knew their place … but your portrayal of “little antisemitism” is false despite the fact that its falsehood is not in agreement with your political views.

64

But Dseid, researching the sources they all orginate from one man, Bat Ye’or, and are far removed from the conventional view of Islamic history.

65

When did I say “all suicide bombings will stop?” I never said that, dude. Don’t put words in my mouth.

66

I’ve arranged a special forum where we can debate the relative merits of “suicide” versus “homicide.”

milroyj, perhaps you could explain why homicide adds something to bombing? Generally, I think many threads are cluttered with this hijack.

67

You posted earlier:

Which to me implied that suicide bombings would stop if Israel pulled out of the West Bank.

You later posted:

Here you indicate that Israel pulling out would merely lower support for suicide bombers, not end it, which you allude to by admitting there will still be an ‘extreme faction’.

68

Woman, actually. I think Stillman and Lewis present a more balanced view ( not necessarily a rosey one, either ) on the topic than Ye’or, but that is just my opinion.

Personally I think you are both wrong, arguing from polarized positions, while only superficially acknowledging the complexity of the actual relationship over space and time.

MC I think you are failing to realize that “protected” does not mean “equal” in any sense of the word and while anti-semitism was not nearly as virulent in the MENA a century ago as it is today, that doesn’t mean it was rare.

DSeid, I think you are conflating anecdotes with standard policy - Most pagan faiths weren’t given a choice of “convert or die” and treatment of Jews, while unequal and occasionally truly awful, was not always, or even mostly, that of “barely protected and despised”. More usually it was “somewhat protected and tolerated” and occasionally it was “protected and respected”.

  • Tamerlane
69

I never said they were equal, but it is a poor example of antisemtism as it was specifically directed at the Jews. The main unfair forms of treatment were higher tax levels, some restrictions on freedom of relgion and different legal status.

70

Let me clarify what I meant.

By my first statement I meant that the suicide bombings would not have started without dislocations and occupations. They would never have occurred simply from pure, spiteful antisemitism. Once the milk is spilled, though, you can’t put it back in the glass, at least not all of it.

If the occupations are pulled back and the settlements are dismantled, I think the frenquency of, and support for, suicide bombings would dwindle and eventually fade away-- especially if a Palestinian state can be created.

Anyway, my first post was only in reference to the original impetus for Palestinian terrorism. Maybe I should have phrased it differently (e.g. “Without the dislocations and subsequent occupations, antisemitism alone would not have pushed Palestinian resentments to the point of suicide bombings.”)

71

Dhimmi status meant that the “protected” minorities must be given some rights, as “people of the book”. What rights were given, and what withheld, varied from time to time; were generally respected, but not always; and were certainly preferable to those labelled pagan.

However, they certainly implied a second-class status, and an existence on sufferance. Which is not to deny that at some points in time, Jews fared comparatively well. After all, they were a tiny minority, without outside “protectors” who could be counted on to stir up trouble.

So long as they remained submissive, second-class, and no threat, Jews could count on a fairly even history of being treated as second class citizens, enlivened by only the occasional massacre. Clearly, many people prefer Jews to remain that way, particularly those whose active conciences are stirred by the echoes of colonialism dredged up by the Arab-Israeli situation. Oh for the good old days, when one could sympathize with the plight of the Jews!

72

The Palestinians’ demands for peace boil down to the following:

  1. The removal of all Israeli forces and settlers from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
  2. Palestinian control over East Jerusalem for use as the capital of a Palestinian state.
  3. A “right of return” for former Arab residents of what is now Israel and their descendents.

Leaving aside the extremist rhetoric of Hamas and other Palestinian hotheads, which of these concessions are the Israelis willing to make? None of them? Would that be fair? How can we expect the Palestinians to give up their struggle in exchange for something far below the minimum of what they feel entitled to?

No, I wouldn’t grant them all 3,but a compromise between 3 and 0 is not 0. I would support an agreement that would:

  1. Remove all settlements except those within a few miles of the Israeli border.
  2. Implement a shared sovereignty scheme for East Jerusalem similar to that proposed by Barak.
  3. Limit the right of return only to former residents themselves.

If there are ideas for fairer plans I like to hear them.

73

Now Tamerlane, did I say “barely protected and despised”? I think that Malthus’ portrayal is fair, as is yours, that the treatment of Jews was “unequal and occasionally truly awful” but also sometimes not bad especially in comparison with treatment in the Christian world. BTW, Tamerlane, you knew that Bat Ye’or was female because Bat means daughter, right? Anyway, I shot off because I hate hearing that myth of Arab rule being all one huge Golden Age for the Jews get repeated again and again. The Arab sensibility of the place of the Jew in their world certainly played a role in how Jewish return to Palestine in significant numbers was recieved. Didn’t we debate this once upon a time?

sqweels,
I think that very close to that would be agreeable to most Israelis. Again, I’d think that other agreements, on the practical items needed for making a new country work, are more important but less sexy. As I, and others (I think Tamerlane is among them) have previously stated, long term Israel and Palestine-to-be will need to be in some cooperative arrangement (loose federation?) with strong independent identites but sharing tax revenues, educational systems, tourist and industrial developments, if both are to be as successful as possible. Beginning to work on these details is much less headline grabbing than settlement concessions, but more imortant to making a better future for Palestinian and Israeli children than a few miles more of less of territory or a few alterkocher Arabs coming to ancestral homelands for their last years.

74

Haha, that’s what I said. :slight_smile:

75

No, I didn’t mean to come off as quoting you, just using quotation marks to imply that it wasn’t an absolute statement, but rather shorthand for a greater complexity ( not quite “emphasis quotes”, but close enough to probably be semi-inappropriate :wink: ). However that is the impression I got from your comments, despite the disclaimers. But I’m certainly willing to admit I might have been over-reading.

I think that Malthus’ portrayal is fair

Generally, yes, I’d agree. With the only caveat being that I wouldn’t say the term dhimmi was meant to actually imply existence on sufferance, since Islamic doctrine explicitly demanded tolerance, unless attacked. But that’s not really a disagreement, as I’d certainly agree that it was usually de facto what it amounted to.

Nah, I just know who she is and have read a little of her work.

I though a bat was one of those little flying things that come out at night :p.

Yes, you’re correct that experiences varied widely. One can find some pretty good periods ( classical al-Andalus and in some respects much of Ottoman history for example ) and some pretty bad ( the fundamentalist Almoravids and Almohades in later al-Andalus were pretty awful to everybody - indeed a small part of the justification for the initial Almoravid invasion were that the Andalucian princes were placing Jews in authority over Muslims - Samuel ibn Naghrila being an excellent case in point ).

I’d agree it played a role, but I’d be wary of just how much of one. Any influx of outsiders ( especially ardent nationalists of a sort ) in those numbers was bound to provoke a reaction. I’d definitely put it down as a complicating factor, but one I’d be very unwilling to quantify. For example, I don’t doubt that large numbers of, say, Indian Muslims imported by Britain, likely would have generated a lot of negativity as well ( especially if they arrived with the financial wherewithal to start buying up sizeable amounts of land ). The Circassians on the East Bank didn’t stir up tons of trouble, but there were far fewer of them and they mostly settled in “wasteland” ( not really, but generally uninhabited ) areas.

Yes, I’m generally in agreement on all of the above. Whether I think it’ll ever get there, is another question…

  • Tamerlane
76

How about this for a cynically optimistic thought?

Sharon and Abbas are in cahoots. Abbas doesn’t have the fire power to significantly take on Hamas right now and can’t invite another power to come in and help him. Israel does it all the while Abbas bemoans her for show and then, after a significant softening of Hamas’ structure has been achieved, Abbas manages to convince Israel to halt the “extrajudicial executions” and to make more substantial withdrawls, after which Abbas takes over on taking on a now physically weakened Hamas. Meanwhile Sharon’s iron fist with Hamas has played well with the Right wing softening their objections somewhat with the more moderate sements of that group.

Hmmmm.