http://http://www.fnotw.org/Article/Full/4777 Until we can expand our focus, both in time and space, on the conflict than we can never make the Jewish case to the larger world and making that case is imperative. The only way to understand the conflict is through the lens of Jewish history in the Arab world and the history of the persecution and submission of non-Muslims in territory conquered by Muhammed's armies. Perhaps the biggest problem that we face in understanding the Arab-Israel conflict has to do with focus. That is, among western liberals the typical understanding of the conflict is that it is one between Israelis and Palestinians fighting over a bit of turf, since November of 1947, on the eastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. We tend to think that Israel is largely at fault because it is occupying and causing innumerable sufferings for the indigenous population. We tend to oppose tactics like suicide bombings or the violent targeting of innocent Israeli civilians, but we also tend to understand that a people under occupation will do what is necessary to free themselves, which is what the Palestinians are trying to do. This, in a broad kind of way, represents the sort-of middle-of-the-road western liberal view of the conflict. This western liberal view, which was my view until fairly recently, seeks balance and even-handedness. It comes from an ideological standpoint in which peoples around the world are viewed as more-or-less the same in that we all want the same things. We all want to live decent lives and have decent jobs and to take care of our families and to get along with our neighbors and to have a little fun now and again. The basic idea is that everyone wants these things and that if we would simply treat one another fairly than we could all get along in peace. As applied to the Israel-Palestine conflict this means that since the Israelis are the occupying power, who are persecuting the indigenous minority population, it is up to the Israelis to cease and desist in order to bring about a peaceful and just resolution to the ongoing problem. If only Israel would end the occupation then resistance to the occupation would also end and we could see a Palestinian state living in peace and thriving alongside the Jewish state of Israel. It's a matter of freedom and justice for the Palestinians and security for the Jewish people of Israel. This is essentially where Barack Obama is coming from and while this view is more or less monolithic on the western center-left it is also significantly present on the western political right. It represents a general consensus among people who bother themselves with the issue and it explains why so many friends of Israel throughout the world, including very many Jewish people, tend to think that both sides are largely to blame, but that the real burden is upon Israel to make the peace. This very moderate, very reasonable, very rational take on the conflict is also, sadly, entirely wrong. The conflict is much longer in time and much wider in scope than the typical well-meaning western liberal understanding of it. This never-ending fight is not one between Israelis and "Palestinians," but between Jews and the much larger Arab world that has persecuted those Jews for centuries. Furthermore, the conflict did not begin in November of 1947 with UN Resolution 181 calling for recognition of the Jewish State of Israel. The timeline for the ongoing war against the Jews of the Middle East begins not in the twentieth-century, but in the 7th century with the rise of Islam, because Islam, itself, has hatred and contempt for the Jew hard-coded into the faith as written within both the Koran and the Hadiths and as acted upon by innumerable Arabs from that day to this. The fact of the matter is that the Arab-Muslim world has persecuted and stoned and murdered and harassed the Jewish people for religious reasons since the time of Muhammed. There are 60 to 70 Muslims in the Middle East for every Jew and the Jews have been driven out of every Muslim country throughout the Arab Middle East within living memory. Our numbers are tiny compared to the vast hostile majority precisely because that hostile majority has succeeded very well in keeping our numbers small. Living for thirteen hundred years under the system of dhimmitude a Muslim could beat or kill a Jew and that Jew, or his family, would have little, or no, recourse within Muslim jurisprudence. So, if you honestly wish to understand the conflict then you have to understand that it is not a matter of post World War II militaristic Israelis persecuting a small allegedly indigenous minority, as most on the progressive-left, including the Jewish left, would tend to think. Nor can it, from an historical standpoint, be reasonably characterized as "the Jews have done bad" and "the Arabs have done bad" and that if only both sides would take the measure of their own guilt then we could finally move beyond the problem. The truth is that one side is far, far larger than the other and has been far, far more aggressive than the other over the course of fourteen centuries. Although it is not politically correct to say so, and although it flies in the face of commonly accepted wisdom, the fact of the matter is that it is the tiny Jewish minority in the Middle East which has been, and continues to be, the victim of the Arab-Muslim majority population. The Jews of the Middle East are no more the aggressors against the hostile Arab majority than black people in the United States were the aggressors against the hostile white majority during the period of Jim Crow. Until we can expand our focus, both in time and space, on the conflict than we can never make the Jewish case to the larger world and making that case is imperative. The only way to understand the conflict is through the lens of Jewish history in the Arab world and the history of the persecution and submission of non-Muslims in territory conquered by Muhammed's armies. Furthermore, the only way to understand the conflict is not that it is about Jerusalem versus Ramallah, but Jerusalem versus Ramallah and Cairo and Beirut and Tripoli and Mogadishu and Khartoum and Damascus and Riyadh. Finally, all peoples are not the same and we do not all want the same things. This is not due to issues of "race" - there is no such thing as a scientific biological category known as "race" - but because of culture. Those among the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world who would like to see al-Sharia as the basis of government - Daniel Pipes puts the estimate at maybe 10 percent or 150 million people - may very well want to live decent lives and raise their children to be decent people, and so forth, but they also want to impose a system of government upon the rest of us in which women are chattel, Gay people are slaughtered outright, Christians are driven from their lands, and the Jews are either third class citizens... or dead. Source: http://http://www.fnotw.org/Article/Full/4777
I picked this one at random, I am not going to retort to the rest of this innacurate <parody>... Arabs are not indigenous to the Land of Israel from Time Immemorial... The nomenclature <Palestinians> was invented by Yasser Arafat and Nasser in 1964... No Arab is under occupation since this is the Land of the Jews... OTH I think part of the Jewish State is occupied by Arab Squatters that eventually will have to make a wrong move and be destroyed!!! And for you I S R A E L is written this way!
Your author doesn't know much about the ME or Islam.. - - - Updated - - - The were Palestinians in 1950 when I was a girl..
Lots of Palestinian refugees worked in KSA and attended church with us.. Read the documents at Avalon Project, Yale.. Its called Palestine in all the documents.
Today it's called Israel. For the next 2000 years it will also be called Israel. BUT, both of us will not be here to see that...
In your mind but not in reality or law http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/10/time-icc-act-palestine-20131015113944266410.html
Nothing to do with me personally. You are working on removing Palestine by facts on the ground. You say there is no Palestine. The reality is that there is and can easily be shown by doing any search. Palestine is there now but your intent is to take it over and make it all part of Israel without giving the Palestinians themselves any rights. Your attempt to basically steal the resources and livelihood of the Palestinians is an unlawful one and like any unlawful act it will eventually face consequences.
Wrong , Wrong, Wrong. Palestinian Bedouin should have rights, and a country, But Jordanians "Hashamites" stole their identity. Jordan is Palestine. Jordan is the ONLY solution ( and quite a simple one ) to the situation in the M.E. Palestine is not a part of Israel. Arabs and Muslims have 52 countries. I THINK THAT'S MORE THAN ENOUGH !!!
No, accurate Both Israeli and Palestinian Bedouin should have rights http://jfjfp.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Bedouin_1309.pdf Yes indeed they should have equal rights in their country. Israeli Bedouin do not have rights as equal citizens of Israel and of course Palestinians have no rights at all...ain't you just been speaking about how your have internalised the taking over of their land so much you believe you have already done it. Tough. It has nothing to do with that. They are the indigenous people of that land - many of them expelled from areas that are now in Israel - and don't forget Gaza. Water is going to b e undrinkable there within the next 5 years or so. They are part of the Palestinians people, many of them expelled from what is now Israel. If you wanted separation, you ought to have gone for the two state solution and not been greedy. Now you are left with the only possible outcome, equal rights and citizenship for all. Like I said in time there are consequences for acting illegally. http://jfjfp.com/?p=50395
MGB ROADSTER, alexa, et al, At the outset, the author (Limish) makes two very distinct bullet points which the article orbits. (REFERENCE) Analysis: Expanding the Focus From Israel side on Israel - Palestine zone Thursday 2013-09-26 18:34 UTC by Michael Lumish Article-ID 4777 Last modified Thursday 2013-09-26 23:02 UTC by Michael Lumish Political Forum - Politics - Region: Middle East - Isreal-Palestine: Expanding the Focus ---> Forum Posting #1 Until we can expand our focus, both in time and space, on the conflict than we can never make the Jewish case to the larger world and making that case is imperative The only way to understand the conflict is through the lens of Jewish history in the Arab world and the history of the persecution and submission of non-Muslims in territory conquered by Muhammed's armies (OBSERVATION) The first point, "focus, both in time and space" although eloquent, is a bit nebulas (what does it mean). What is the "imperative" --- the undefined thing that is absolutely necessary and required to grasp and understand; what is the unavoidable consequence in both space and time? I've read the article several times, and I'm not sure I understand this point --- quite yet! The second point, "through the lens of Jewish history" is a single perspective. This remains to be seem if it is a correct assumption. But many would argue that if is both (unintentionally) arrogant and a philosophical fallacy on two levels [false alternatives (there is more than one perspective) and flamboyance (focus on the essence of what is said, not the manner in which it is said)]. (ALTERNATIVE VIEW) There is no question that space and time had its influence on the Region, but the people of ancient times were rather very different people than those that call themselves Israeli and Palestinian (by statehood sovereignty) today, and the Jews and Arabs in the time of Alexander the Great 2300+ years ago. Even the Jihadist of the HAMAS Covenant agree, that the conflict we observe today has a much more recent beginning. The implication of the phrase used by the Allied Powers ("the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home" circa 1920) at the San Remo Convention, refers to the point of origin as expressed by the HRH The Emir Faisal (son of King Hussein of Hejaz) and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, Chairman WZO (First President of the State of Israel), in their famous Agreement of 1919 when they were mutually "mindful of the racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations." At that moment in time, no matter how brief --- the Arabs and the Jewish people were of one mind and understood the "national aspirations" of the the other. I submit that the scope and nature of the conflict did not begin, as author Michael Lumish says in the "7th century with the rise of Islam;" but began to developed in the two years that followed the Agreement between HRH Emir Faisal and Chairman Weizmann. I think the disappointment was expressed best in the Letter from HRH Emir Faisal to the Allied Powers, submitted by General Hoddad Pasha (Hejaz Army) on March 10, 1921. (NOTE: Syrian born Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, took-up the fight against British, French, and Zionist organizations within the Levant shortly there after --- in 1920s and 1930s.) Now, were HRH The Emir Faisal, General Hoddad, and the radical Islamic teacher Izz ad-Din al-Qassam all operating off the same sheet of music? (Rhetorical) --- No! Izz ad-Din al-Qassam did have an impact by adding the anti-Jewish element to the conflict; but it was counterproductive. The Article 13 and 15 Jihadist that exist today trace their linage back to al-Qassam, including the philosophy that all cases of struggle by whatever means, including armed struggle, against foreign occupation and aggression for liberation and self-determination, shall not be regarded as a terrorist offense. In the Arab-Israeli conflict, there is no such thing as terrorism; crimes against terrorism do not apply to any act in the defense of territorial integrity of any Arab State. Under the Palestine National Charter (in the fashion of Izz ad-din al-Qassam): Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the greater Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation. Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit. One cannot look at today's issue revolving around the conflict with purely the eyes of "Jewish history in the Arab world." It is a much more dynamic set of ground conditions that have had an impact in shaping the outcomes we have today. While it is important to consider the historical ties to the land which the Jewish People have placed so much importance upon, it must be understood that time moves forwards. And the links are lost. From an academic standpoint, it is nice to know where your roots are --- but, from a practical viewpoint, it has little or no value. No nation, culture, or inhabitant can reach back over the millennia and pull forward an ancient claim and declare it valid. The reality of today must take precedence. Most Respectfully, R
Ronstar; et al, This is correct. (COMMENT) The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was, until 1946, administered as territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine. Most Respectfully, R
The reality of today and the future will not change. Pro Islamists believe that by Ethernet propaganda they can change something .. Well they won't. Jordan is the homeland of the Arab "Palestinian" Bedouin people. - - - Updated - - - It will be after Assad's fall and the changes it will cause around..
Poppycock...........What researches??????????????????? This land is the ANCESTRAL HOME OF THE JEWS SINCE THE TIME OF THE BIBLE... The Place was called Ottoman Empire for 400 years and passed to the British through a Mandate for 30 years... There was no <Palestine independent entity> belonging to the Arabs then... Palestine passed from the Britisdh Mandate to the Jews because of their ancestral connection to that Land and it was renamed <Israel>... The nomenclature <Palestinian> was coined in 1964 by Yasser Arafat (an Egyptian born chief terrorist) and Mr. Nasser Pres. of Egypt then.
Most Palestinians and Jordanians were settled people.. living in villages and farming.. Why do you persist with your falsehoods? Is that what they teach you in school? As for the Hashemites.... . the Banu Hashim, or clan of Hashim are an Arabian clan within the larger Quraysh tribe... and they never had any authority to make a deal with the Russian Chaim Weizmann ...........
Its been called Palestine since 500 BC by Herodotus.. and Arabs have lived there since Abraham. How is it that you don't know the facts?
What does that relate to what i wrote ? The mijority of 2013 Jordanians are Palestinians. More than 70%. The king is afraid they will take over his country. The Arab spring efect will reach Jordan. The uprising is just around the Jordanian corner.
Of course, there were also Christians, Armenians, Bahai, Circassian, Girgis, Muslims, Bedouin and Jews also!
Not really they are working very hard <removing themselves> from current society! and the proof of the pudding is in this Video. Why is there no peace in the Middle East? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuPsuI2lJyA Wahabi Terrorist: Muslim Men May Enjoy the Company of up to 19,604 Women in Paradise. What a BS ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ICFmjQsmkQ What about this guy? hmmmmmmmmmm Peace in the Middle East http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNNhG0zDtA8&feature=player_embedded
