I don’t know of any solutions to the conflict. But I do maintain that US intervention can only make it worse. For the US and Israelis that is. It helps the Arabs.
The problem is that the US has influence with one side only. They have very little ability to pressure the Palestinians. Partly because a large percentage of the drivers behind the Palestinian cause are murderous thugs (which is, in turn, because a lot of people on the Palestinian side support murderous thugs), partly because the Palestinians have a core of support among other Arab nations, and partly because of the US position as Israel’s main ally.
The reason this is a problem is that while the US would undoubtedly prefer to conduct their diplomacy in a just and equitable manner, the overriding concern is to calm things down and ultimately, to arrive at some sort of peace. And the US ability to calm things down and bring about peace is primarily by leaning on the Israelis to make concessions. Sure, the US would like to lean on the Palestinians. But they can’t. The result is a “peace process” consisting of Israel giving and Palestinians just demanding more.
So it’s bad for Israel. But its also bad for the US. Reason being that the Arabs - having seen a string of American-negotiated concession - have come to view the Israelis to some extent as US puppets. And to the extent that the Israelis balk at some concession or other, it is viewed as a failure of the Americans to bring the Israelis in line. Which intensifies Arab anger at the US. Unproductive.
In general, it is accepted too axiomatically that it is the proper role of - and in the interests of - the US to get involved in mediating conflicts all over the globe. I think this may be to some extent a carryover from Cold War days, when local struggles tended to impact on the larger World Wide Communist/Capitalist struggle. I think this mentality is wrong.
IIRC, Israeli citizenship was offered to the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza, after Israeli occupation in 1967. I think most of them refused. This would be akin to a neo-colonialism – the Palestinians want their own state. They want, and have every right to, self governance. Few of them, IMHO, have any desire to be Israeli citizens.
I see what you are getting at but isn’t what they have now essencially colonialism? I mean, the Palestinians survive in the West Bank and Gaza only by the grace of Israel and the natural resources they provide. Also, the largest employer of Palestinians is the Isreali economy. Despite all that, Palestinians have absolutely no say over how they are policed or what resources they will be supplied.
At least as part of a functioning greater Israeli state they will have the right to vote for their representatives and the right to self determination. To say nothing of unrestricted access to their holy sites.
The problem here is between your suggestion to “withdraw the settlements” and “declare a homeland at the borders decided on at Camp David”. The Camp David II agreement would have allowed Israel to annex some settlements where large Jewish populations live. Arafat refused that. So I don’t see why he would give up fighting if they went back to Camp David.
Also, how do you hermetically seal the border? Like between the Koreas? Geographically that isn’t really possible here. And if you mean returning to the 1967 borders, the vast majority of Israelis don’t support that, it would mean ethnic cleansing of 200,000 Jews living there, and it would return Israel to what was known as the “Auschwitz borders.” Aside from the fact it would reward Arafat for his last year of terror.
Also, if you think the world will suddenly love Israel if they withdraw, and then attack when attacked, you have a very naive view of history. Just look at Israel after they withdrew from Lebanon. We attack, and we are condemned. I’m unwilling to rely on the international community.
This actually is not true anymore. Hezbollah has taken an active role in this intifada, both by actions by supporters in the territories, and more disturbingly, by a number of attacks by Israeli Arabs working with the Hezbollah.
You bring up an important point. There never really was a Palestinian Arab nation previous to the founding of the State of Israel. There were Arabs living here, but they never set up an independent country, and viewed it generally as a province of Syria. Jerusalem was never made a capital, and had less significance to the Arabs 100 years ago.
The last independent country here was the Jewish Commonwealth, which was destroyed and exiled by the Romans. Now we’re back.
The problem with this solution is that by annexing the occupied territories, and granting citizenship to the Arabs living there, and potentially letting in even more refugees, it would mean the end to Israel. Israel is a democracy, and by allowing an Arab majority, it would simply self-destruct.
Now you might say – so what? Democracy is democracy, and Israel should act like any other country, and if that means an Arab majority, then so be it.
But Israel is not like any other country. It is a country for the Jews. The only country for the Jews (unlike the 22 Arab states). I feel that the world has an obligation to treat the Jewish state differently, because for thousands of years it treated the Jewish people differently. The Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Romans slaughtered us. The Christians and the Moslems slaughtered us. The Nazis and the Communists slaughtered us. We have no where else to go, and we are going to have to play by the rules that the world set up for us over the past 2000 years.
Here is a link to a popular “letter” that sort of sums up how a lot of Jews feel:
There’s something very unsettling about a Beltway wonk advocating war on the part of another country. I’m not sure I would have noticed that had Alessan not made his statement above.
Darn it! It looks like Dave Barry is repeating himself. 10-20 years earlier than the above book, in Dave Barry’s Claw Your Way to the Top, he said:
“Of course, the people on Wall Street don’t want you to know this, which is why they’re always making up preposterous explanations as to why stock prices rise and fall, such as ‘tension in the Middle East,’ when of course there’s always tension in the Middle East. When we finally have a nuclear war and there is no life left on Earth except cockroaches, the cockroaches in the Middle East will be tense.”
Gaza is a functioning seaport. They have infrastructure in the West Bank – there are schools and roads and sewage and water systems. They have a lot more than some of their Arab neighbors. Israel in 1948 looked similar to what the West Bank looks like now – I see no reason why they cannot be self sufficient within a decade.
Now to curwin:
I agree with you on most of your points. I just see it that Israel needs to force an endgame to all of this. This cycle of violence has been nearly constant since 1967. I believe that if Israel wants security, it must take the matter into its own hands. Israeli soldiers are being sacrificed every day to protect extremist settlements of no strategic value. Most settlements don’t even have religious significance. The settlers can be moved – it has been done before. You would have 200,000 angry settlers, but this is better than 200,000 dead settlers (although I suspect it would be hard to move people from Hebron and a few other religious spots). Annex the settlements close to the borders like Gilo and Ma’aleh Adumim, and move the rest of them.
You are right that the geography is tough for a true border. I have lots of family in Ra’anana which is across the street from Kfar Saba which abuts Qalqilya, an Arab settlement. The distance from the beach at Hertzliya to the Green Line near my family is less than 10 miles. But, if there are no settlers to worry about, you can cut down 99% of the border traffic. I have never really agreed with George Will but he is right – the negotiation has accomplished nothing since Oslo and will probably accoomplish nothing. Build a wall.
Arafat, IMHO, doesn’t want an independent state. I suspect he wants to fight until the Israelis are pushed into the sea. That is what he has done his whole life. Giving him a state that he would have to run would not be a reward, as it would take away any excuse that he has to keep fighting.
A piece of gangrenous tissue will poison the entire body if left alone. No amount of treatment to the tissue will keep it from doing so. The only solution is to cut it off. Cut off the West Bank. Cut off Gaza. It is only serving to poison the rest of Israel.
Because a majority (or perhaps the most vocal elements) of their political and religious leader would rather their children throw rocks at soldiers and their young men strap on explosives and commit terrorist attacks against a civilian population.
If they put as much energy into building infrastructures in their communities as they put into anti-israeli demonstrations then they would indeed stand a good chance of accomplishing what you suggest.
Now, could someone explain to me once more, using short words and simple sentence stucture, why Israel must revert to 1967 borders in order to accomplish above plan of sealing off its own borders and forcing the Palestinians to the negotiating table on the basis that they (PA) have no other economical or political option. Yes, everyone wants to come to a negotiation to argue from a position of strength, otherwise what is there to compell the strong party to compromise. On the other hand, Israel has plenty to compell it to settle this comflict. Security and world opinion (to a large extent) being the two most obvious.
Strange, for normally I find myself — given I work in the Arab world — defending Israel, but have to say the interventions so far have displayed — with exception of Alessan not surprisingly — little understanding of the Palestinians. I’m going to play a devil’s advocate here, from some genuine sympathy and from a frustration with the one sideness of understanding here.
I have take exception with the ‘received wisdom’ that Arafat is ‘nothing but a terrorist’ who just wants to ‘push Israel into the sea.’ The man is stupid, unclever and undoubtedly ruthless, but he desperately wants his little state (largely for selfishreasons, IMO) and certainly realized there is no pushing Israel into the sea. No love is lost to be sure, and I can’t say his Arabic comments are filled with warmth, but Arafat today is not the stereotype of the Arabs of the 1970s and 1980s. Hamas and other ideological Islamist organizations are another matter, but that’s also not truly under control.
Let me give context. I speak, read and write Arabic well. I feel I have a sense for political situation from the Arab POV. I both think that Palestinians have fully legit gripes against Israel and that Israel has both a right to exist within its internationally recognized borders and legit concerns re its security. And I feel there is ground for compromise.
So, my thoughts on the recent comments.
First, I think such comments as «ethnic cleansing» in re abandonment of the West Bank and Gaza strip settlements are fundamentally incorrect, wrong-headed, unhelpful and obscure reality. Should Israel decide to withdraw from the settlements, which are after all in violation of international law, that is a decision of the settler’s own state. Withdrawal from Sinai was not ethnic cleansing, nor would this be. Abuse of term is not helpful.
Second, in re withdrawal from the settlements and the world ‘loving Israel’ as well as the Southern Lebanon situation. The issue is certainly not the world ‘loving Israel’ or another such idea, but finding a mutually acceptable compromise. It is also an issue of course of strategy, both in terms of long term political relations and image, and economic costs. Of course hiding behind this is water politics too. The withdrawal from Southern Lebanon was about reducing costs and losses. As far as I have observed, the majority of the border has remained fairly quiet, except in the shebaa farms area, which is contested with some real basis at the very least, and Hizbollah (Lebanon) has vowed to pursue its private war in this regard. The kidnaping of the soldiers remains, to my knowledge, an isolated incident and in general the situation is a vast improvement, to my understanding, over the grinding guerilla war in Southern Lebanon. It strikes me as likely given my Lebanese contacts that had the al-Aqsaa intifada not broken out that the Lebanese government would actually be cooperating to an extent with Israel in re border security rather than the current cold war. (The wild card being Syria)
Unilateral withdrawal probably is not the best thing, but neither is it a catastrophic idea. Naive view? No, I am a cold blooded cynic with no dog in this fight, but neither am I blinded by partisan hatred.
This sounds like the no real Palestinian nation propaganda and al-Qods ash-sharif not really holy to Islam thing.
Propaganda.
Firstly, I’ve failed to see the relevance of this Palestinian nation thing. All nations are created and plenty are recent. Perhaps the state of Israel has indeed created a Palestinian nation in response to it, no matter, it exists now. Certainly of course pre-1948 identities, among Jews, Xtians and Muslims in the Middle East were usually quite different than they are today. Zionism largely didn’t exist among the Arabic speaking Jews, most Arabic speaking Xtians id’ed it appears either with a vague pan-Arab idea or local communities. Same for the Muslim Arabic speakers.
Jerusalem of course had not been the capital of any independant nation since perhaps the Crusades, if one wishes to count the principalities of that chaotic period as real states. Irrelevant then.
As to al-Qods, that is Jerusalem in Arabic and the al-Aqsaa mosque, it is and has been for many centuries the third holiest place in Islam. One can probably say that Jerusalem had less significance 100 years ago insofar as its being part of the Arab world was essentially unchallenged at that point. Putting oneself in Muslim Arab shoes, the two words not being synonymous, it’s easy to understand a certain complex and agitation (as of course it is in re Israeli jews) regarding its status. It might be helpful if some posters attempted to understand this. (I frequently, of course advise my Arab interlocutors the same thing in an opposite context)
On a mixed state
Well, perhaps, perhaps not. It really all depends on what one is doing. Frankly annexing the territories won’t work, fiats rarely if ever work in these situations, frankly colonial. A negotiated federal solution, with compensation to Palestian landowners who have lost lands to Israeli expropriations at various times, with a transition period to unwind security problems, tamp down extremists — and of course including a division and shared sovereignty over Jerusalem (the old city not a suburb reentitled the same) —.could work.
Well I am afraid I do say that. Just like human rights are humans. Exceptionalism is never healthy. The following text I find fundamentally wrong:
Arabs, Palestinians? Ah the confusion. They engage in it themselves unfortunately but the reality is that the Palestinians in the occupied territories and the refugee camps are not citizens of any Arab country, or better any country using Arabic. I don’t see that this calculus is truly relevant nor helpful. Jews live peacefully, prosperously in much of the West, America is a country for the Jews IMO (and I say that positively lest one give this a reading of those contemptible anti-Semites that we find among the Aryan nations and allied groups crowd). The reality is there are Israeli jews and there are Palestinians. It’s not realistic to expect either millions of people to go anywhere else, nor is it healthy for one group or the other to utterly deny the other’s legitimacy, or even in part. Israel is just like any other country. It has rational interests, economics and nationalism which may conflict with eachother.
There is a real problem that poses. Is it possible to be a democracy and be a particularist state for a certain ethno-religious group? What meaning does this give to the identity of the Israeli Arab?
A separate issue, a separate thread, but I suggest this kind argument leads to a terrible, terrible moral error and horrible, horrible conduct in the long run.
And I feel such argumentation is both utterly rubbish and historically unfounded. The «world’ does not treat people, the Jewish experience is common to many minorities, sadly human nature being unpleasant. The Jewish state was established. It has taken its place in the international community. International law, international relations are not founded on exceptionalism. Nor can they be. Should France be forever treated differently for its particular history? Or why not Germany, is it forever a pariah state, the sins of the grandfathers visited on the present generations? Why not the same statement then for most African nations which were (or more accurately the peoples in them) for hundreds of years treated differently, savagely and perhaps with the exception of that terrible decade the 1940s, with greater disdain and prejudice.
I refuse to apply that argument and line of thinking in terms of Africa. I refuse it here, it is a grave error, a fundamental error.
As they slaughtered others with equal fervor. And as many other minorities without the good fortune to have such well-documented histories — and I say this out of respect for the learning the jews have brought into the world and protected for us all — have been slaughtered. Sadly, the jews experience as a minority community is all too mundane.
Discrimination, once removed, does not entitle a community to special status but to be treated as others, on equal footing (taking into account any needs to correct past hindrances arising from discrimination). On the level of the state of Israel, it has benefitted from vast amounts of aid, and I begrudge it not one penny. At the same time, I see this as good enough. Admitting a limited excptionalism for discriminated groups enough to correct for the most recent generation’s suffering, but one can not pretend to count 2000 years of myth and history as justification for present politics. Israel has to exist according to the same standards as any other member f the international community. No special standards are owed it. (Of course that also means that the special hatreds directed towards it must be thoroughly condemned, I’m not about double standards.)
And I add I find this to be rubbish. There are other places to go. Other choices. I do not say that the jewish community should have made them, Israel should exist. But I don’t care for this overloaded rhetoric for it strikes me as an attempt to preclude understand the other guy’s position, the other guy’s claims. In this case understanding, accepting even if one opposes in the end, Palestinian claims.
Of course several of these factors are clearly self-generated, or in the case of the (f) part of the mutual idiocy. Those of you who think that w/o peace the Palestinians can build up are abstracting away from fundamental differences. Now peace has to come from all sides. From a Palestinian perspective Israel continues to seize their last lands, through settlements etc. They are passionate about that.
I disagree that negotiations produced nothing. Quite the contrary, the 1990s produced an acceptance in the Arab world for the idea of Israel. The old stereotypical rhetoric in re zionist entity is gone. Unfortunately I’ve noted that the past several months have seen the return of war language, but even in this, the idea of the Israeli state is accepted. Now, certainly there are groups which would love to push Israel into the sea and want to pursue it. My sense is they are a minority. Lots of Arabs would prefer that Israel didn’t exist. But it does and most everyone understands it will exist in the future. Anger, of course, over perceived — and real to some extent — Israeli injustices (however provoked) is running high.
Negotiations came close to a resolution. However from the Israeli side (I harp on the Israeli side since I am attempting to give a Palestinian POV here, to balance the issue) continued settlements and real bad faith shown during the Netanyahu government, and in the Palestinian POV, from Barak in terms activity on the ground, poisoned the well. The Palestinian faults of course have already been cited. I frankly advance the opinion that bad faith on BOTH parts, substantial bad faith on BOTH parts, played a role in ruining a promising beginning. Of course, it strikes me that none of the negotiations so far have done enough to address Palestinian feelings of injustice and desire to be recognized. By which I mean that to an extent the dispossesed should be bought off. I could be wrong on this, not having fully thought that through, rather it comes to mind instantly. Still, I am struck in what I have read, in Arabic, by the sense of fear of land seizures, the sense of dispossession. A mirror image of Israeli security concerns. I view the two as equally valid. Are they resolvable?
Collounsbury: That was quite possibly the best post I’ve seen you make ( and I already granted you a fairly high status ) . Well said - It encapsulated my views ( or many of them ) pretty thoroughly.
I don’t think an independent, sealed Palestinian state based on the Gaza and the West Bank is truly viable in isolation. The parallels with Israel are only partial. In addition to overcrowding, lack of comparable technical expertise, and, probably, lack of the same level of international aid that Israel has received over the decades, there is the burning issue of water rights, which Israel would find very hard to cede ( both for political and practical reasons ). Also all of this supposed Palestinian infrastructure ( which does exist ), is only half of the equation. Because it includes essentially no significant industries. The Palestinians were/are a labor force for Israel ( and I say that with no condemnation ) and as such BOTH economies are dependent to some extent on each other. The Palestinians obviously much more so. The current system frankly, is not all that much different in reality ( if very different politically ) from the former situation in South Africa, with its “homelands”.
And Curwin, Collounsbury got to the point first, but I really have to agree with him. You CAN’T make that exception for Israel ( or you can, but I don’t agree with it ). I fully understand why you feel you need to. But I can’t agree that such an attitude is ever warranted, no matter what the circumstances. At least not as anything more than a strictly temporary amelioration.
It is always been my contention that the only viable solution for the area is a confederacy of sorts. Perhaps a cantonment system. With a necessarily separate political and security apparatus ( at least for the immdeiate future ) but with an interlocking economy AND resource allocation. The costs of achieving this would be high ( witness the relatively far less complex remerger of the Germanies ), but I don’t see any better solution, as neither group can just pick up and leave. Nor should they. And yes, shared control of Jerusalem should be part of the agreement.
Of course, I don’t see any way of making that sort of plan a reality under the current set of circumstances. Which is what depresses me . Because I think Edwino’s solution, with all due respect, is unworkable as a practical answer and would just continue to breed animosity. And frankly there aren’t any other better alternatives out there. So, I just don’t know .
Alessan statement is certainly correct in that modern Israel did not exist prior to the previous century.
However if the Koran truly described Jews as monkeys and pigs , having been written in the first millenium, and I would be safe to assume that the Arab hatred towards the Jews existed since the dawn of their religion. Such entrenched religious hatred renders it virtually impossible to secure a mutually favourable agreement. Can you imagine any mullah coming forward to strike these words from the Koran? That would be blasphemy. Any peace agreement requires some mutual respect in populations that are free to bear arms.
grienspace: Despite some early conflict ( some Arab tribes were Jewish and strongly resisted conversion ), the Koran holds a place of respect and tolerance for Jews ( and Christians - that respect was also later extended to the Zoroastrians ) as ‘Peoples of the Book’. i.e. Islam has always recognized followers of Judeo-Christian traditions as being on the right path. In the Muslim mind the Koran has simply superseded the Old and New Testaments as the final refinement of that tradition. Now that doesn’t mean Jews were accorded equal status, they still had to pay a ‘non-Muslim tax’, for instance. But it does mean that until a relatively late period ( 10th century at least ) there were few attempts at aggressive conversion of non-Arabs. And almost throughout Islamic history, right up until the last century, Jews were generally better off, accorded more respect, and were subject to less harassment in Muslim countries, than in Christian states.
I don’t read Arabic and I don’t have a translation of the Koran handy, but I don’t believe Jews were singled out significantly more than any other unbelievers, as being worthy of condemnation. Quite the contrary, as I stated above. If there are some unusually negative passages in there, they must be very context dependent ( perhaps comments on those Jewish Arabs that resisted Muhammed’s initial entreaties? ), since they never led to widespread persecution of the Jews by Muslim authorities.
I have to take issue with that statement following some initial research. My understanding of the history of the region during the Islamic period is somewhat vague, however I must present thearticle by Dr. M Kedar of the Jewish Federation who provides several hateful quotes from the Koran.
Jews are the sons of monkeys and pigs (5,60)
Jews distorted holy writings…(2,73) (3,72)
Jews denied God’s signs…(3,63)
Jews violated covenant with God…(4,154)
Jews cursed by God…(5,16) Jews are forever the inheritors of hell (3,112)
Can you expect a follower of Islam to make a pact with the disciples of the devil?
In any case, one can exist peacefully with a group provided there is nothing to irritate that relationship and ignite a conflagration. The Jews have survived horrendous persecutions throughout their history. But the fuel and oxygen, thanks to the Koran are always available for another flareup particularly in the Middle East.
Why fight? Why not try for peace? Do they not want peace? Do they want blood shed of innocents? Why can’t they settle it like Gahndi? Use reason not violence. Killing women and childern accomplishes nothing at all. Why can’t they settle this with a chess game or something. Why guns and deadly force?
As always, I have tremendous respect for your posts and for your opinions. While I fully recognize the plight of the Palestinian people, and fully support a homeland for them, I will cling to my suspicion that Arafat does not want peace. Let me add that I think he was a willing partner for peace throughout most of the 1990s, but something happened in the last year which has caused him to abandon this path. Let me also say that I do believe that others in the Palestinian government are rumoured to be much more dovish, much more intelligent, and much more capable than him. Two names which come to mind are Yaser Rabou and Hanan Ashrawi – they paint the party line in public but it is rumoured that they push for negotiation.
I cling to my opinions of Arafat for many reasons – since August, he has not made any public moves towards peace. If not directly inciting, he has done nothing to stop it. In 1996 IIRC he jailed thousands of Hamas militants. Those were freed in the last year. Nothing has been done to rearrest them. He has done nothing to stop inciteful language on his organ of information dissemination, the WAFA news service. He has made no speeches praising peace. Many statements condemning bombings and militant acts against civilians are released in the world media but are never broadcast in the territories. He has kept anti-Israeli sections in classroom curriculums and textbooks. Schools were dismissed in August and I do not know if they ever were started again.
Anyway, I hold no grudge against the Palestinians. I wish them fair and equitable treatment. I wish them prosperity, as through prosperity comes peace. I believe that most Jews and Israelis feel similar. I just think that their leadership, specifically Arafat, caters to the most extreme militants in the society because he is afraid of being assasinated.
Grienspace: ‘Peoples of the Book’ or ‘Protected Peoples’- The term used was ‘ahl al-dhimmah’ - defined in Islam, fifth edition byCaesar E. Farah ( 1994, Barron’s Educational Series, Inc. ) as: peoples, i.e. Christians and Jews, whose protection was enjoined by the Qur’an.
They were accorded a higher status than pagans in the Islamic worldview and afforded protection as communities. On the Ottoman state - “The Ottomans, like previous Muslim regimes, consideredthe non-Muslim subects autonomous but dependent peoples whose internal social, religious, and communal life was regulated by their own religious oragnizations, but whose leaders were appointed by, and responsible to, a Muslim state. Non-Muslim groups were called by the genric terms of dhimmi ( protected peoples ), ta’ifa ( group ), or jamat ( religious community ). In general the Ottomans seem to have made separate arrangements with local bodies of Christians and Jews which gave them a measure of local autonomoy and administrative responsibility. Minority leaders, sometimes ecclesiastics, sometimes laymen, represented their communities to the authorities, and dealt with ecclesiastical matters, internal disputes, and fines and taxes on a local basis.” From A History of Islamic Societies by Ira Lapidus ( orig. printing 1988, Cambridge University Press ) - emphasis mine.
On the early strife with the Jews - “In the consolidation of Muhammed’s power, a crucial step was the elimination of the Jewish clans which proved hostile to his mission. In his early vision of himself as a Prophet, Muhammed was sent by God to all Arabians - Jews ans Christians as well as pagans. He was to restore te purity of the faith already revealed, preach a renewal, and end corruption that had crept into daily life. Thus is Medina Muhammed wanted to include Jews in his nascent community. Specific religious practices such as an equivalent to the Jewish Day of Atonement and Jerusalem as the direction of prayer shoud have been appealing to the Jews. The Jewish clans, however, rejected Muhammed’s clamis to being a Prophet in the Hebrew tradition. They challenged his legitamacy and disputed his accounts of sacred history. In the course of this struggle with the Jews, the Quran denounced the Jews for having broken their covenant and revealed more about Abraham as the Prophet par excellence, who taught the pure religion of God, the first hanif, the builder of the Ka’ba, and the father of the Arabs. The Quran now revealed that Muhammed as sent to restore the pure monotheism of Abraham. Thus Muhammed bypassed the Jewish and Christian scriptural legacy. His community would no longer include Jews and Christians, but would be a distinct religion superseding Judaism and Christianity. To carry out his mission, Muhammed went on to exile or execute the Jewish clans in Medina and to seize their property for his followers. By winning over the Medinan pagans and destroying his opponents, including the Jewish clans, Muhammed made all of Medina a Muslim community under his rule.” From Lapidus, again.
So I suspect that is where those quotes derive from and refer to - The sectarian conflict in Medina. Regardless, as I have said, those words were not used through history to justify particularly persecuting and oppressing the Jewish community, beyond the fact that all non-Muslims to some extent held an inferior position in Muslim society. Muhammed certainly rejected Judaism, as he did Christianity. And no doubt he used strong language to do so, as he considered those who clung to those beliefs to be ( I may assume ) deluded fools. But he DID surely acknowledge the common tradition from which their faith derived, and he did specifically write in special protections for those communities. I’ll see if I can dig around a little later and find the exact passages . But my point is that Muslims have no more impetus towards slaughtering Jews than Christians do, and in fact, somewhat less ( in that they are specifically enjoined from doing so, under certain circumstances, anyway ). I suppose what you could claim is that the Quran doesn’t make any particular provisions for treating Jews as equals. But not all Muslims are necessarily slaves to Gospel, as it were.
And let’s remember that there are Christian Palestinians.
Edwino: Re: Arafat - Well, you may well be correct on that one. Hard to tell, really. The problem is that I think he is at a point where his hands are tied by his rapidly disintegrating authority. Even at the height of his power, decades ago, he never commanded the absolute allegiance of the Palestinian people. And his attempt to walk both sides of the fence ( however cowardly and short-sighted that decision may have been ) in recent years has earned him nothing but a further erosion of his powerbase. I suspect he is fast becoming an irrelevancy, where the Palestinians are concerned. Which wouldn’t be a bad thing at all ( he IS a thug ), except there seems to be little to replace him with, that WOULD command the necessary mandate and authority. At least there is nobody(ies) readily apparent.
Maybe his fall ( which may be soon, he’s not a youngster ) will be positive, and will bring some sensible voices to the fore. On the other hand it may just accelerate the chaos .
Curwin: Thanks for the links . They’re quite interesting.
I guess I’m not particularly shocked that Hizbullah would be interested in getting involved in the intifida. As I said, I’m certain they have a strong political affinity for groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. And no doubt the destruction of Israel is high on their theoretical wish list. It certainly makes sense, that with much of the pressure now relieved in Lebanon, they would consider expanding their operations somewhat, whether for reasons of genuine ideological fervor or out of crass political calculation ( often hard to tease apart the two with these radical groups ).
Nor am I surprised that Iran is interested in advancing a working union between those militant groups. It fits in with their own ideological goals. And if they don’t quite give Hizbullah their marching orders, they certainly exert an enormous amount of pull ( and frankly, I’m sure they have been in the business of aiding the sunni Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as well ).
But I am more than a little surprised that Hizbullah would actually be recruiting among the Palestinians, for much the same reasons Collounsbury mentioned. There aren’t a lot of shi’ite Palestinians and Hizbullah has always been a fiercely sectarian outfit. I can’t help but wonder if this recruitment of Islamic Jihad and Hamas members is isolated and in the vein of luring away a handful of “professional militants”, i.e. trained specialists. Mass recruitment from the greater whole of the Palestinan populace seems unlikely, unless they have really undergone a considerable ideological shift.
I guess my original point, way back when, was that the Hizbullah, assuming they are still an overwhelmingly Lebanese instituition, have a slightly different motivational bent than the Palestinian groups. For the Palestinian militants it is about nationalism as much as it is about the destruction of Israel - They want land. For the Hizbullah, again assuming a predominantly Lebanese Shi’ite constituency, their nationalistic aspirations vis-a-vis Israel have already been satisfied ( the Shebaa Farms region excepted, perhaps ) with Israel withdrawing from Lebanon. For them this would be much more an ideological affair, than a practical one.
Which of course doesn’t make a bit of difference to the poor person that gets blown up in a cafe. But I think it is a good idea to keep the differing motivations of the various groups in mind.
. Well said - It encapsulated my views ( or many of them ) pretty thoroughly.
. Because I think Edwino’s solution, with all due respect, is unworkable as a practical answer and would just continue to breed animosity. And frankly there aren’t any other better alternatives out there. So, I just don’t know