H St-John Philby: British Agent, Muslim convert, Enemy of Israel

 The career of H St-John Philby shows the ambivalence, if not treachery, of British policy towards Jews and Zionism in the twentieth century. Philby is described as an orientalist  meaning that he knew Arabic and several tongues of Muslim peoples in India and Iran and some of the history of that vast area.

Over the years he served the Empire as a diplomat, intelligence officer and political officer. He became a British government official in India in  1907 but his career took off during WW I when he became head of a British army occupation unit in Iraq.  In 1917 he was sent to the Nejd (central Arabia, roughly speaking) to meet its ruler at the time, Abdel-Aziz ibn Sa`ud. Philby's mission was to persuade Ibn Sa`ud not to attack Britain's ally against the Ottoman Empire, Husayn [Hussein] the Hashemite, Sharif of Mecca, recently recognized by the British as King of the Hijaz, NW Arabia, where Mecca and Medina are located. 

Philby was the British Resident in Transjordan in 1921-1924. Now Resident was a clever British imperialist institution. A  Resident was more than a diplomat. A Resident was there not to rule an obstensibly independent country directly  but to give "advice" when requested or needed --from the British standpoint, sometimes the kind of advice that one cannot afford to refuse. The British had assigned Transjordan de facto to Abdullah [also assigned to the Jewish National Home; see clause 25 of the "Mandate for Palestine" of the League of Nations], son of the  Sharif Husayn, as part of their reward to him for military aid during WW One. While Philby was the Resident for Hashemite-ruled Transjordan, The Saudis of the Nejd attacked and conquered the Hijaz [1924-25]. Some believe that Philby encouraged the Saudis to fight and conquer  their old rivals the Hashemites, although he was the Resident in Hashemite-ruled Transjordan. Be that as it may, we see that Philby was a significant figure in British policy and intrigue in the Middle East in the first half of the 20th century. The pièce de résistance may be Philby's conversion in 1930. He subsequently served as an advisor to Ibn Saud in his capital Riyadh, formerly capital of the Nejd. He stayed there until 1954, a year after Ibn Saud's death, when he was expelled, then settling in Lebanon.

Now I am going to present a report of what Philby said at a gathering of Italian and Muslim intellectuals held in Italy in 1955. Philby was a Muslim of course but not an Arab. Maybe a would-be Arab. The conclave was meant to discuss the relations between Islamic and Western civilizations. The Italian writer, Guido Piovene, reported that the meeting turned into a trial of the West on the part of the Muslim intellectuals present, including Philby. 

Here is a passage from Piovene's short book on the event that comprises a long quote from Philby as well as observations by Piovene:

"Philby is an adventurous Englishman. He converted to Islam, lived in Saudi Arabia for many years as advisor to Ibn Saud, and  was later expelled for reasons that remain in dispute. He now lives in Lebanon. Muslim fundamentalism found specifically this neophyte to be a disappointed  defender who, having abandoned the West, saw the West invading his own refuge. The authentic Muslims do not seem to consider Philby one of their own and viewed his strict Islamic practice with skepticism and reserve [emph added]. 'The Islamic world,' Philby told us, 'before putting others on trial, should put itself on trial for having left its own religion and accepted Western civilization as superior to its own. Unfortunately, Islam has lost something by Westernizing, the essential principles of its own culture as well as the conviction that its own culture was superior to all others. The materialistic culture of the West has prevailed [in the Islamic world] and has introduced there its distinguishing vices; while exploiting petroleum, the Americans have brought wealth and corruption. Previously the poor of the Orient looked forward to a reward after death. Now, like Westerners, they  aspire to the material goods of this life. The winds of modernism have induced the Muslims to contravene the precepts of the Quran; polygamy has been abandoned; the fasts have been lightened for those who work. The strict Wahhabite movement which is opposed to modern tendencies, flourished between one [world] war and the other. It has now lost its following. For that reason, what clash there might be between the two worlds is not seen, nor is on what basis the trial might take place. The conflict is merely political and its principal cause – that nobody wanted to talk about—is the problem of Palestine. The Palestinian state [here meaning Israel] is not the work of Jews but of European colonialists, imperialists, exploiters, who adopted Zionism as an instrument. Here is the reason for the conflict [between Islam & the West]; it is not a religious conflict since one of the parties [the Muslims] has already been assimilated.'

 

"Thereby Philby accepted the thesis of the majority that the clash between Orient and Occident is today merely political. But, while most of the others viewed this favorably, Philby viewed it with regret. In short, he rejected that universalism, that religious syncretism, that today make up the obligatory religion of all international gatherings." [The Italian original follows below]

This is the place to bring in  a number of my own comments and observations.

1. The Arab-Muslims at the meeting know his background and do not trust him. [The authentic Muslims do not seem to consider Philby one of their own ... etc]

2. H St-John Philby prefers authentic, traditional Islam to the Westernized Islam of the second half of the 20th century. For instance, Philby regrets the passing of polygamy.

3. H St-John Philby appears more Muslim than the Muslims. Indeed he scolds the born Muslims for copying the West. He charges them with abandoning their superior civilization for the inferior Western civilization.

4. The West is materialistic, whereas traditional Islam is spiritual. [Christianity traditionally valued --or claimed to value-- the spiritual over the material, spiritualiter against carnaliter]

5. Since the Muslims have assimilated to Western civilization, the clash between the West and Islam, or Philby might have put it as between the West and the Orient, is purely political and not religious.

6. Israel was not established by Jews but by "European colonialists, imperialists, exploiters." Hence Zionism was not an authentic, genuine Jewish movement but was a pretext for "Europeans" whose motives were colonialism, imperialism, and exploitation. The charge of "imperialism" coming precisely from a British imperialist is rather rich of course.                   Now, the whole effort to make Zionism seem to be not genuinely Jewish reminds me of a somewhat similar effort by another British imperialist, Arnold Toynbee, a historian and director of studies at the Royal Institute of International Affairs [RIIA-Chatham House; also partly funded by the American Rockefeller Foundation], and frequent contributor to the RIIA's journal International Affairs, an official British publication inasmuch as it was the organ of the Royal Institute. Toynbee argued in the early or mid-1950s that Israel was not an authentically Jewish state since it had been founded and  governed at the start by unreligious Jews, by socialists and secularists rather than by religious Jews, and especially not by the so-called Ultra-Orthodox [in Israel called Haredim] whom he seems to have considered the most authentic Jews. Another similarity between Philby and Toynbee was the latter's favoring of spirituality. For Toynbee, the secularized West had rejected its spiritual Christian heritage.

7. Philby's use of the term "Palestinian state" to refer to Israel suggests that the "Palestinian people" notion was not yet in the open in 1955. Philby uses the term "Palestinian state" more as a geographic reference.

Some of the themes enunciated by Philby are still around in Western anti-Israel discourse. "Colonialist" and "imperialist" are still often used although they appear usually in "Leftist" rhetoric. "Exploiter" is not often heard nowadays since today's "Left" has little to say about the working class who used to be considered by the "Left" the constant objects of capitalist exploitation. Use of the term exploiter today would remind folk too much of the old themes of fighting for the working class, which is out for now.

Philby's sympathy for Islam is still around and was enunciated by both US presidents, Bush 2 and Obama. Bush notoriously declared that Islam was "a religion of peace." Obama traveled to Cairo in 2009 to make a speech extolling Islam and sympathizing with its travails and difficulties.

Philby spoke in favor of Islam and championed the Arab anti-Israel cause. Did he stay a British agent all his life? Was his conversion to Islam a cover for promoting British policy?

Piovene's Original Text in Italian

Philby è un inglese aventuroso, convertitosi all'Islam, vissuto a lungo nell'Arabia Saudita come consigliere di Ibn Saud, più tardi espulso per motivi che rimangono controversi. Ora vive nel Libano. L'integralismo mussulmano trovò un defensore deluso proprio in questo neofita che, abbandonato l'Occidente, vede l'Occidente invadere il suo stesso rifugio. I mussulmani autentici non sembrano considerare Philby uno dei loro, e accoglievano non senza scetticismo e riserbo il suo rigorismo islamico. "Il mondo islamico," ci ha detto Philby, "prima di processare gli altri, deve processare se stesso, per avere lasciato la propria religione e acccettato la civiltà occidentale come superiore alla sua. Disgraziatamente l'Islam ha perduto occidentalizzandosi i principi essenziali della propria cultura; e insieme la convinzione che la propria cultura sia superior a tutte. La cultura materialistica dell'Occidente vi ha prevalso, e vi ha introdotto i vizi che la distinguono; sfruttando il petrolio, gli americani hanno portato la richezza e la corruzione; i poveri dell'Oriente prima aspettavano un compenso dopo la morte, adesso ambiscono, come gli occidentali, i beni materiali di questa vita. La ventata del  modernismo ha indotto i mussulmani a contravvenire ai precetti coranici; è stata abbandonata la poligamia; sono stati alleviate i digiuno per chi lavora; il movimento rigoristico Wahabita contro le tendenze moderne, fiorito tra una guerra e l'altra, ha perduto il suo seguito. Non si vede perciò quale contrasto possa esservi tra i due mondi, né su che basi possa avere luogo il processo. Il contrasto è solo politico; e la sua causa principale, di cui nessuno ha voluto parlare, è il problema della Palestina. Lo stato palestinese [il stato di Israele] è opera non di ebrei, ma di europei colonialisti, imperialisti, sfruttatori, che hanno adottato il sionismo come strumento. Ecco il motivo del contrasto; nessun contrasto religioso, perché una delle parti è stata ormai assimilate."

 

Philby accedeva dunque alla tesi dei più, che il contrasto tra Oriente e Occidente  è oggi soltanto politico; ma, mentre la maggioranza degli altri vedeva questo con favore, Philby se ne rammaricava. Egli rifiutava insomma quell'universalismo, quell sincretismo religioso, che costituiscono oggi la religione d'obbligo di tutte le riunioni internazionali.                             [Guido Piovene, Processo dell'Islam alla civilta` occidentale (Milano: Oscar  Mondadori 2001) pp 24-25]

Abdel-Razek Abdel-Kader, Le Conflit judéo-arabe

_________ . Le Monde arabe a la veille d'un tournant

Nihad Ghadri, The Great Challenge (np, nd)

Yaacov Shimoni and Evyatar Levine, Political Dictionary of the Middle East in the 20th Century (New York: Quadrangle 1974)

Moderate Faisal Husseini Says Land of Israel Belongs to Islam, thus Lasting Peace Is Impossible

It is notorious by now that shortly after signing the ceremony for the Oslo Accords on the White House lawn, yasser arafat traveled to South Africa where he told a Muslim audience that these accords should be seen like the Hudaybiyyah truce accord that Muhammad, the Muslim prophet, made with the Meccans. It was meant to last ten years. But a couple of years later, after Muhammad felt that the Muslims were now sufficiently strong to defeat the Meccans, he and his men broke the truce and defeated the Meccans and captured Mecca.

What I did not know about is what Faisal Husseini told an Israeli reporter, Daniel Haik, two years after Oslo in 1995:

This celebrated [Arab] notable, nephew of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el Husseni, but more "moderate" in appearance, received me in his luxurious villa in one of the neighborhoods in the eastern part of Jerusalem. I especially remember one question that I asked him during the interview . . .: "Will the Palestinians agree to recognize the presence forever of a Jewish State in the Land of Israel that you call Palestine?" His answer was direct: "That will be impossible because we can never recognize a Jewish presence on land belonging to Islam." [HaGuesher, 1-17-2018 in French ici ]

There you have it. The motive for the Arab refusal of Israel has to do with Islam, with Islam's supposed ownership of the Land of Israel which the Muslims consider to belong to the Islamic nation or Umma in perpetuity by the principle of waqf. But the West and the so-called Leftists invented for themselves all sorts of other reasons and excuses for Arab intransigence. What is interesting here is that the "Leftists" always used to disqualify movements for being religious. It was on that ground that the Communists rejected Zionism. And here we have a frank declaration by a Palestinian Arab leader that the motive for denying Israel's right to exist in perpetuity is -- Islam, a religion. Yet that religious motive does not seem to bother the Left, not the social democrats, not the Marxist-Leninists so-called, nor any other species of Leftist that I am aware of.

Bear in mind that although Jews lived in Arabia in the days of Muhammad, and he fought battles against those Jews and massacred the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe, Jews have been forbidden to live in Arabia [except for Yemen which was under different rulers] for more than 1000 years. Saudi Arabia maintained that law for many years although after the Six Day War of 1967 when Jews came there as representatives of important foreign powers [like Kissinger representing the USA], the law had to be waived.

As to the Land of Israel, Husseini was simply enunciating the old Islamic principle of waqf. Land that has been conquered by Muslims belongs to the Muslim community in perpetuity and cannot, must not, be alienated. Waqf land is sacred, inalienable property of the Muslim Umma, the Islamic nation. Of course, we know that vast areas in Europe and Asia and Africa were once conquered by Muslims.  Most of Spain and large parts of southern Italy, France, Greece, the Balkans, the Ukraine of today, and even Hungary were under Islamic domain for longer and shorter periods. Muslims no longer make a vocal call for that land to come back to Islam. This means that they recognize superior strength as do most people. However, jihadi extremists like the clerics who have guided Hamas, have said that Spain, etc, must come back to Islam. So the claim of waqf ownership of Spain, southern France, etc, is in abeyance but has not been cancelled in principle by the true, strict Islamists. This may seem odd to those aware that the Quran itself recognizes Jewish/Israelite ownership of the Land of Israel, sometimes called Holy Land or blessed land in the Quran. However, other Quranic verses seem to abrogate this recognition of Jewish ownership of the Land of Israel. And the waqf principle is above all. Hence, Islamists challenge not only the legitimacy of Israel but of many other countries.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Quote in French original of Faisal Husseini's crucial response:
Ce sera impossible, car nous ne pourrons jamais reconnaître une présence juive sur cette terre appartenant à l'Islam [Daniel Haik in HaGuesher, 1-17-2018; p6]
- - - - - - - - - - -

Erdogan's Turkey Goes for Teaching "Good Jihad"

If you are one of those who dislike President Trump, however much you may dislike him, remember all of Obama's kind gestures, his love of peaceful Islam, his friendship with Erdogan, his thwarted efforts to put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt and to keep it there, and so on. And you may mellow on Trump.

Obama was notoriously close to Erdogan in the first few years of his regime, so much so that he and Erdung were called BFFs [best female friends]. Obama was apparently in cahoots with Erdung over the Mavi Marmara siege-breaking affair [2010], among other things. Now the would-be sultan of a restored Ottoman Empire is introducing "good jihad" into Turkish schools. Excerpt translated below with original:

Starting with the return to school in September, the concept of "jihad" will be taught in most schools in the country, according to the new curriculum conceived by the Islamo-conservative government and made public on July 18. It is not a matter of learning holy war but rather "the good jihad," the jihad that exalts "love of the fatherland", Ismet Yilmaz, minister of national education, hastened to clarify. "Jihad exists in our religion and it is one of the duties of the ministry of education to see to it that this concept is taught in a correct and appropriate manner," he insisted.

À partir de la rentrée scolaire, en septembre, le concept de « djihad » sera enseigné dans la plupart des écoles du pays, selon le nouveau programme conçu par le gouvernement islamo-conservateur et rendu public mardi 18 juillet. Il n’est pas question d’apprendre la guerre sainte mais plutôt « le bon djihad », celui qui exalte « l’amour de la patrie », s’est empressé de préciser Ismet Yilmaz, le ministre de l’éducation nationale. « Le djihad existe dans notre religion et il est du devoir du ministère de l’éducation de veiller à ce que ce concept soit enseigné de façon juste et appropriée », a-t-il insisté.

Marie Jego, Istanbul, for Le Monde 7-28-2017

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More on Erdogan: here & here & here & here

The role of Qatar and Washington insiders in the Mavi Marmara affair here

Quality Turkish Education? Whither? [here]

BBC Equals Fake News -- Gavin Esler & Dateline London

The Dateline London program on BBC is usually interesting even if the guests, journalists stationed in London, British or foreign, usually stay within certain acceptable or conventional bounds of permitted opinion. Hence, the opinions expressed about Israel and issues connected with Israel stay within the narrow framework of conventional Western anti-Israel opinion -- or better said, within the bounds of anti-Israel prejudice. Of course they are free to express their opinions. They are free to affirm fake news, however false it may be. Now, with charges of "fake news" flying in all directions, it is relevant to discuss the falsehoods of the BBC, not only of the guests on the Dateline London discussion panel.

We are long  used to the BBC's anti-Jewish prejudice, which was expressed during the Shoah by avoiding reporting on the ongoing mass murder of Jews by the German Nazi forces. And we also keep in mind that the BBC's foreign reporting is supervised by the Foreign Office, as Shmul Zigelboym noted during the Holocaust.

So it was no surprise to hear Gavin Esler, moderator of Dateline London, utter several lies that fit into the smear-Israel, anti-Israel, pro-PLO narrative. In the middle, approximately, of the show broadcast on 18 & 19 February 2017, Esler introduced the topic of one-state or two-states to supposedly settle the Palestinian Arab-Israeli conflict. He said that there were supporters of the one-state solution on both sides, Israeli and Arab. Then he said that Israeli supporters of that "solution" wanted the one-state to be Jewish, whereas Arabs ("Palestinians" in his lingo) wanted "a democratic state" with --presumably-- equal rights for all and Jews and Arabs ("Palestinians") living "side by side". This presentation of the desires of both sides --to an audience devoted to equality and democracy-- makes Israelis sound bigoted and Palestinian Arabs sound broad-minded, democratic, egalitarian, and liberal.

Now, how accurate or honest was Esler's description? First, have the many mass murder terrorist attacks against Jews by Palestinian Arabs over the years, and especially in the wave of murderous terrorism that began about one and a half years ago in September 2015, demonstrated a desire to live together in peace with Jews on the part of the Arabs, who are --by the way-- an overwhelmingly Muslim population? Second, how is it that, whereas no Arab state is truly democratic and all but Lebanon affirm the supremacy of Islam or Islamic law in their constitutions, that the Palestinian Arabs, unlike the other Arabs, want a democratic government with equality for persons of all religions and all ethnic groups living within the state -- quoth Esler? That would be very curious indeed and would demand special scholarly investigation -- if true. Thirdly, the treatment of Arabic-speaking Christians in the Palestinian Authority is bad and does not indicate respect for their equal rights. Fourth, is there any documentation of the supposedly democratic inclinations of the Palestinian Arabs and their putative statelet, the Palestinian Authority? Can Esler or anyone else supply a reliable public opinion poll to that effect?

In fact, it is widely known that the Palestinian Authority is far from democratic. It is far from respecting basic human and civil rights for its own people-- let alone Jews. Just look at documentation provided by PMW (Palestinian Media Watch) demonstrating the hate agitation of the PA government in Ramallah headed by Mahmoud Abbas [Abu Mazen], as well its financial corruption regarding its own people. There is also the record of anti-Israel hate agitation in Arab media generally --although there are exceptions-- provided by MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) And most pertinent to the discussion, the PA has drawn up a constitution for its not yet existent state. This document like Arab state constitutions generally, provides for the supremacy of Islam and Islamic law. What exactly does the PA-proposed constitution for a future state comprise?

The draft constitution of the planned state affirms: 

“This constitution is based on the will of Palestinian-Arab people,” (Article 1), “the Palestinian people are a part of the Arab and Islamic nation,” (Article 2), “sovereignty belongs to the Palestinian Arab people,” (Article 10), “the legal character of the Arab-Palestinian people will be embodied by the state,” (Article 13). “Islam will be the official religion of the state,” (Article 6). [emph. added] [Prof Shmuel Trigano pointed to these articles of the draft constitution]

Now, it is notorious that the status of the non-Muslim, the dhimmi, in the Islamic state is an inferior one. The section of Islamic law that deals with dhimmis is called the dhimma and it provides for the regular inferiority of the dhimmi in many areas of life, such as the special taxes borne by the dhimmi and his regular humiliation, his worth as half of a Muslim in that his testimony in court is worth half of a Muslim's testimony, and so on and so forth [see dhimma rules here & here].

Further, Esler claimed that the "Palestinians" who wanted a one-state solution wanted it to be "a democratic state" with --presumably-- equal rights for all and Jews and Arabs ("Palestinians") living "side by side". Whereas Islamic law, shariy`ah holds that non-Muslims, dhimmis, are inferior, one wonders whether there are more than a handful of genuine, loyal Arab Muslims who want a truly democratic liberal state where Jews have equal rights. And as to living "side by side," Jews in Arab-Muslim-ruled lands were often forced to live in ghettos, as in Christian Europe up to the French Revolution and after it in many places. I have not found a public opinion poll of Palestinian Arabs who both want a single state and want it to be democratic with equal rights for Jews. If Esler or anyone knows of such a poll, please publicize it and send us a link. I will be glad to post such a link. However, I did find something:

Saeb Erekat, the secretary-general of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, said Wednesday that the only alternative to a two-state solution is one state with equal democratic rights for all. [here]

Now Saeb Erikat is an expert propagandist, a liar and double-talker. The liberal affirmations that he makes when speaking English are typically contradicted by what he says to his own people in Arabic. So his sincerity in speaking of an egalitarian, democratic state is highly dubious, especially if we take into account how his Palestinian Authority treats its own Arab population. And bear in mind that he subscribes to the draft constitution quoted above which is an Islamic supremacist document. Furthermore, it seems likely that when Esler was saying that Palestinian Arabs who wanted a single state wanted it to be democratic and egalitarian with Jews and Arabs living side by side, he was thinking about Erikat's statement above which had been published just days before on 15 February 2017. If Esler believes one word uttered by Erikat then he is a fool. But maybe believing in the likes of Erikat is a rule at the BBC.

Be that as it may, how about Jews living in the same state with Palestinian Arabs? Could they live or reside in such a state? As far as Erikat's relative, Maen Areikat [the spelling difference is immaterial] is concerned, Jews would not have the right to live in a "Palestinian state."

INTERVIEWER: So you think it would be necessary to first transfer and remove every Jew.
AREIKAT: Absolutely. No, I'm not saying to transfer every Jew. I'm saying to transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state.
INTERVIEWER: Any Jew who is in the borders of Palestine will have to leave?
AREIKAT: Absolutely.
[here & here]

The "Palestine" that Areikat wants to construct would include Jewish holy places and cities that the Jews have long traditionally considered holy, like Jerusalem, especially the Old City, and Hebron. The Jewish holy places that he would foreclose Jews from living close to include the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the Tomb of Simon the Just in Jerusalem [outside & north of the Old City], the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem and so on. Given the record of the Kingdom of Jordan before the Six Day War in preventing Jews from visiting the Jewish holy places, access to which had been stipulated in the 1949 armistice accords,  the projected "State of Palestine" would likewise prevent Jews from visiting Jewish holy places.

We see that public opinion among Arabs in the Palestinin Authority is not liberal and not eager to live in equality with Jews. And therefore, Gavin Esler was broadcasting fake news. Nothing new for the BBC.

It Was Only a Detail That They Forgot -- The Detail Was Jewish Victims

Not speaking about the Jewish victims of Islamism 
says a great deal, unfortunately, about what is going 
on between Islam, France and the Jews.
Ne pas parler des victimes juives de l'islamisme 
en dit long hélas sur ce qui se joue entre l'islam, 
la France et les juifs.
David Isaac Haziza, La Regle du jeu

On 31 July 2016, a group of about fifty French Muslims prominent in various secular fields, the academic world, business, medicine, arts & entertainment, journalism,  engineering, education, and including a philosopher, high state functionaries, politicians, one of them a former government minister, and so on, signed their names to an ostensibly frank and sincere open letter to the people of France, terribly shocked by the murder of a helpless priest during his worship service. This atrocity came after several years of mass murder terrorism in France perpetrated by Muslims. These Muslims prominent in secular society stressed the need to "finally conduct a cultural battle against radical Islamism"  [mener enfin la bataille culturelle contre l'islamisme radical]. But there was something in their open letter or manifesto that did not ring true. Or rather there were certain things missing from it that cast a dark shadow of insincerity over what was stated. No atrocities specifically aimed at Jews were mentioned. Let's look at the first paragraph of their statement:

After the murder of caricaturists [Charlie Hebdo], after the murder of young people listening to music [Bataclan], after the murder of a couple of police officers [Magnanville], after the murder of children, women and men attending the celebration of the [French] national holiday [in Nice 14 July 2016], today [7-31-2016] the murder of a priest celebrating the mass. . .  The horror, ever more horror and the now very clear desire to set the French one against the other. [ici et ici]

« Après l’assassinat de caricaturistes, après l’assassinat de jeunes écoutant de la musique, après l’assassinat d’un couple de policiers, après l’assassinat d’enfants, de femmes et d’hommes assistant à la célébration de la fête nationale, aujourd’hui l’assassinat d’un prêtre célébrant la messe… L’horreur, toujours plus d’horreur et la volonté très claire maintenant de dresser les Français les uns contre les autres. » [ici]

Where is Ilan Halimi in this statement drawn up by people with very high social status in France? Where is the Sellam young man, a disc jockey, killed in the 2000s? How about the Jewish children in Toulouse and their teacher, the father of two of them? And Hypercacher, which came just two days after the Charlie Hebdo massacre? How can the victims, the Jewish victims  of those atrocities be forgotten? But they were. How can we explain that? Simple forgetfulness? Really!! Weren't French Jews the first victims of Arab and Islamist terrorist in France, starting in late 2000, after the Muhammad ad-Durah hoax was broadcast repeatedly on France2 state TV?

To be sure, when various critics publicly pointed to the forgotten Jewish victims, these socially prominent and moderate Muslims added a post-script to their original manifesto. The Algiers-born Jewish philosopher Bernard-Henri Levi weighed in on the obviously dissembling original document [ici].

Others in other places might observe that Jewish lives count --matter-- less than others apparently.

D’autres, sous d’autres latitudes, observeraient que les vies juives comptent –matter– apparemment moins que les autres.

Levi also alluded to the fundamentally racist, Judeophobic nature of the omission --and of the document-- by hinting at a connection with the slick Judeophobe, the "right-wing" Jean-Marie LePen, in the title of his own critique [L’Hyper Cacher, un « détail » ?]. In the late 1980s, LePen notoriously argued in France that the Shoah was a mere "detail" of history, not an epochal or alpine event, as Dr Franklin Littell had called it. Levi asked if the murder of four Jews at the Hypercacher supermarket was a mere "detail" for the signatories of the manifesto. Levi went on:

. . . you cannot denounce the hangmen by sorting out their victims [with some to be remembered and some not]. And you cannot, above all, claim to get out of an "intolerable situation" . . . . while hiding an antisemitism that is, like it or not, one of the marks and, perhaps, one of the sources of what Abdelwahab Meddeb called the "illness of Islam." 

. . . on ne peut pas dénoncer des bourreaux en faisant le tri parmi leurs victimes.  Et on ne peut pas, surtout, prétendre sortir d’une «situation intolérable » où le déni nourrit l’amalgame et où la confusion sème, à son tour, les germes de la division et, un jour, à Dieu ne plaise, de la guerre de tous contre tous – et occulter un antisémitisme qui est, qu’on le veuille ou non, l’une des marques et, peut-être, l’une des sources de ce qu’Abdelwahab Meddeb appelait la «maladie de l’islam».

One of the implications of the manifesto is that the moderate Muslim signatories exclude the Jews thereby from the French national community. Or one might say that they dehumanize the Jews, saying, as the omission implies--as Levi pointed out-- that Jewish lives do not matter. That this shocking omission came from ostensibly moderate Muslims opposed to radical Islamism, people successful in their careers in French society --presumably the last ones you would think might be bare-faced bigots-- is shocking in itself. It needs to be seen as a warning as to who can be trusted to deal fairly with Jews. If these people are prominent and influential in France, what future can there be for relations between Israel and France? For Jews in France?

- - - - - - - - - - -
Post-Script or Addendum added by the moderate Muslims to their manifesto:      
We French people and Muslims deem it necessary to say with the greatest clarity that we do not make any distinction among the victims of the blind terrorism that has been striking at our nation [presumably France here] for many months. Jewish pupils in Toulouse or customers of Hyper Casher murdered because they were Jews, a Catholic priest martyred in his church [already mentioned in the original document], a Muslim soldier or policeman killed on duty . . . . the list of victims is terribly long and so diverse, in the image of our nation [presumably France] in all its components . . .

Nous Français et musulmans tenons a dire avec la plus grande clarté que nous ne faisons aucune différence entre les victimes du terrorisme aveugle qui frappe notre nation depuis de nombreux mois.
Elèves juifs de Toulouse ou clients de l’Hyper Casher assassinés parce qu’ils étaient juifs, prêtre catholique martyrisé en son église, soldat ou policier musulman abattus en service…la liste des victimes est terriblement longue et si diverse, à l’image de notre nation dans toutes ses composantes, qu’il nous faut affronter l’adversité ensemble. C’est bien tous ensemble – juifs, chrétiens, musulmans, agnostiques et non croyants –, que nous aurons à mener ce combat, il nous faudra toutes nos forces.[at bottom of web page, ici]. 

This statement or clafication later added on  --after criticism was expressed-- sounds good. But how is it that they forgot in the first place about Jewish children in Toulouse or Ilan Halimi, who is not mentioned or alluded to even in the post-script?

For further reading: Bernard Henri-Levi ici. David Isaac Haziza ici.

Islamic Roots of Arab Terrorism -- Kamel Daoud

non sia giusto identificare islam con la violenza
Pope Francis [Papa Francesco], the other day

Just the other day, Pope Francis said that: It would be unjust to identify Islam with violence.

On other occasions, Francis has said that social-economic conditions like poverty and unemployment lead or cause terrorism. Yet, here comes an Arab-Muslim writer, Kamel Daoud, a columnist with a daily paper in Oran, Algeria, and he tells us just how profound is the tie between Islam and jihad terrorism. The frustrated Arab who is poor and out of work is attracted by jihad, by death as a mujahid, a shahid. That sort of death will bring him to Paradise where he will enjoy his 72 perpetual virgins and live in material prosperity and luxury. For millions of Muslims, Paradise beyond this life has taken the place of the socialist/communist utopia.

Aha, but this would be jihadi martyr wants material prosperity and abundant sex in his paradisiacal afterlife, which he does not have in this life, the dunya. So is the Pope right after all about material and socio-economic causes? No, because many quite prosperous Muslim young men have undertaken jihadi murder attacks. Think of Bin Laden, the son of a billionaire. Think of Muhammad Atta of 9/11 fame or illfame. Think of the group of prosperous young Muslims in Dhaka, Bangladesh, who massacred a group of foreigners within the last two weeks. Furthermore, do you hear of poor people generally who are not Muslims who blow themselves up, also killing other poor people, killing women and children and elderly people out of frustration with their socio-economic condition? Of course not. Only do this kind of thing. They are following the Islamic precept of "Killing and being killed, the highest joy in Islam." Both Arafat the Sunni and Khomeini the Shiite stated this principle.

Paradise, the New Muslim Utopia

Lire en français (Read in French)

Contributing Op-Ed Writer
By KAMEL DAOUD AUG. 2, 2016

Credit Edel Rodriguez

ORAN, Algeria — Future writing project: a topography of paradise in the medieval Muslim imagination. But not only medieval, for among Muslims today paradise is also at the center of political discourse, sermons and the contemporary imagination. Paradise as a goal for the individual or the group has gradually replaced the dreams of development, stability and wealth promised by postwar decolonization in the so-called Arab world. These days, one imagines happy tomorrows only after death, not before.

“Paradise decks itself in delights,” an editorial writer mused in an Algerian Islamist newspaper during the most recent Ramadan, the month of fasting. The declaration was followed by descriptions of the charms, the delights, the joys that await the faithful after death. This fantasy of paradise, amply depicted as a place of pleasures, with sex and wine, golden adornments and silk apparel, is the opposite of earthly life — and of the frustrations experienced in Arab countries afflicted by economic failures, wars and bloody dictatorships.

Firdaus (a remote ancestor of the word “paradise,” derived from the Persian) was promised by the Quran and has been abundantly described in religious literature for centuries. But in recent years, paradise has also become the country dreamed of by the poor, the unemployed, the believer — and the jihadist, thanks to certain religious elites who promote it as a means of recruitment.

This is a fascinating renewal of the concept of happiness that was dominant a half-century ago. Back then, the countries of the Maghreb and the Middle East — born out of decolonization often violently wrested from occupying forces that had imposed on them war, poverty and misery — advocated for a vision of the future based on independence, egalitarianism, development, wealth creation, justice and coexistence.

That vision of utopia within human reach, which was taken up by the socialist or communist elites and even some monarchies, was a shared political dream, and it gave legitimacy to those new regimes in the eyes of both their own peoples and foreign governments. Decolonization was the era of grand slogans about the advancement of peoples and modernization through massive infrastructure projects.

But that dream has aged badly, because of the bloody-mindedness of those authoritarian regimes and the political failures of the left in the Arab world.

Today, one has to be a Muslim – by faith, culture or place of residence – in order to experience the full weight of the new post-mortem utopia of the Islamosphere circulating on the internet and the media. It conditions people’s imaginations, political speech, coffee-shop daydreams and the desperation of the younger generations. Paradise has come back into fashion, described in mind-boggling detail by preachers, imams and Islamist fantasy literature.
Its main selling point: women, who are promised in vast numbers as a reward for the righteous. The women of paradise, the houris, are beautiful, submissive, languorous virgins. The idea of them feeds a barely believable form of erotico-Islamism that drives jihadists and gets other men to fantasize about escaping the sexual misery of everyday life. Suicide bombers or misogynists, they share the same dream.

What about the women allowed into the eternal garden? If men can have dozens of virgins, what of the women, especially considering the machismo of those earthbound dream-makers? The preachers’ responses can be amusing: The woman’s heavenly reward is to be her husband’s happy wife throughout eternity, the two of them destined to enjoy perpetual conjugal felicity, at the symbolic age of 33 and in good health. And if the woman is divorced? A preacher replies that she will be remarried to a dead man who was also divorced.

Curiously, this dream of a Muslim paradise finds itself confronted with another dream at once antagonistic and similar: the West. Generating passion or hatred for the Muslim believer and the jihadist alike, the West and its indulgences represent another facet of the post-mortem Muslim paradise. One dreams of going there, whether as migrant or as martyr. One dreams of going to the West and of living and dying there, or of subjugating and destroying it.

The new Muslim utopia weighs heavily on today’s Arab world. What motivates the masses, gives sense to their despair, lightens the weight of the world and compensates for sorrow no longer is the promise of a rich and happy country, as was the case after decolonization; it’s a vision of paradise in the afterlife. But this fantasy of eternal bliss also causes uneasiness: For however much one wishes to ignore this, the fact remains that in order to get to heaven, one first has to die.

Kamel Daoud, a columnist for Quotidien d’Oran, is the author of the novel “The Meursault Investigation.” This essay was translated by John Cullen from the French.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/opinion/paradise-the-new-muslim-utopia.html?ref=opinion

Obama Is Negotiating with Hitler's Iranian Spiritual Heirs

Other than developing a nuclear bomb in violation of Iran's commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the NPT, what else is Iran doing in violation of international law and of all decency? Our last post showed threats made by the present ayatollah government of Iran against the Jews of Israel. These threats violate UN Charter, Article 2:4. Some of these show an uncanny resemblance to Hitler's threats to annihilate the Jews, as shown in the previous post. So on those grounds alone there seems to be something wrong in negotiating with Iran as if somehow an agreement with the present ayatollahs' regime could bring about a peaceful resolution of Iran's quest for The Bomb in violation of the NPT. Part of the problem with Obama's negotiating stance --and that of the P5+1 powers as a whole-- is that they seldom if ever speak of the treaty violation embodied in the very quest by the ayatollahs' regime for a nuclear weapon.

Nevertheless, it would be helpful to display the threats that the present Iranian regime has made in order to properly appreciate the nature of the regime and its purposes. The threats were not only against Israel:

"Israel will disappear and the Western countries that defend it would do well to abandon it so that they themselves are not overwhelmed by the rage of hundreds of millions of Muslims. If the rage of the peoples of the region becomes a storm, it will not be contained within the boundaries of Lebanon and Palestine but will crash down on you too. Think of your own long term interests in the region. This is our final word."
[Muhammad Ahmadinejad 20 October 2006, quoted by Carlo Panella in Fascismo Islamico (Milan: Rizzoli 2007), pp 23-24. Also in Le Monde, 22-23 Octobre 2006; p4]

For those who want to check, here is the quote above as translated into Italian by Carlo Panella:

"Israele scomparirà e i Paesi occidentali che lo difendono faranno bene ad abbandonarlo per non essere essi stessi travolti dalla rabbia di centinaia di milioni di musulmani. Se la rabbia dei popoli della regione diventa una tempesta, non sarà contenuta nei confine del Libano e della Palestina, ma si abbaterà anche su di voi. Pensate ai vostri interessi a lungo termine nella regione. Questa è la nostra ultima parola." [Mohammed Ahmadinejad, 20 ottobre 2006, citato da Carlo Panella in Fascismo Islamico (Milan: Rizzoli 2007), pp 23-24]

Let's examine what Ahmadinejad said above. He made these threats against the Western countries, although the United States had helped the Khomeini regime take power in 1979 when Ahmadinejad was just a junior regime thug leader. France too had helped Khomeini by letting him take refuge in France before he came back to Iran. The US role was described by George Lenczowski in a piece in American Spectator circa 1981. A-jad threatens a storm against the Western countries, although some had helped the regime take power in Iran. He threatens Western interests in the Middle East, but he suggests that these interests will be protected if only the Western states collaborate in destroying Israel. This is explicit in another part of A-jad's statement of the same date. Addressing the UK and the USA, he says: "You . . .  brought into the Middle East this Israeli people of terrorists and enemies of religion [ie, of Islam]. You helped it to subdue the peoples of the region. The best thing now is for you yourselves to take it away." [Panella, op cit, p24]. The remark: "This is our final word," has a strong odor of Hitler's bombastic threats and ultimatums.

Unfortunately, some of Ahmadinejad's demagoguic lies are widely believed nowadays, so much so as to be what Max Nordau called "conventional lies of civilization." For the record, Jews have always lived in the Middle Easten region and in the Land of Israel in particular since the beginnings of the Jewish/Israelite people thousands of years ago. About half of Israel's Jewish population migrated from Muslim-ruled lands, including Iran where Jews were oppressed. So much for the UK and USA bringing Jews into the Middle East. Next, since Israel became independent in 1948 --which was opposed by the UK & USA-- they have usually favored and encouraged the Arab states and PLO against Israel. As of now, the USA and the EU to which the UK belongs contribute something like a billion dollars per year to the budget of the Palestinian Authority. One may add the millions donated by the EU and its member states to so-called non-governmental organizations besmirching Israel and undermining it in public opinion.

Finally, A-jad threatened Europe in particular. "The Americans are far away but you are the neighbors of the peoples of this region. . .  [If you support Israel, you must expect] the hatred of the peoples of the world. . . if the hurricane is unleashed, its effects will not be limited to the borders of Palestine and they will strike you."
[quoted in Panella, op cit, pp 24-25; also Le Monde, 22-23 Octobre 2006; p4]

This is the nature of the regime that Obama claims will restrain itself and keep an agreement if he conducts proper negotiations with it. Can Obama not know the thuggish, fascistic nature of the regime in Teheran?

France Is Rewarded for Its Pro-PLO Vote at the UN -- 12 Murdered

Unfortunately, sometimes our dismal and dreary predictions come true. My last blog post last week foresaw that France would be "rewarded" for its outrageous pro-PLO vote at the UN Security Council.

What we don't know is how the Arabs/Muslims in France will reward Hollande. Now, that France has voted at the Security Council in favor of an outrageous pro-PLO/PA Arab proposed resolution, maybe the days to come will bring more Muslim and Arab rewards for France. [here]

Now we see that terrorists, apparently professional killers, went into the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical weekly that several years ago published an issue mocking Muhammad and more recently published a cartoon mocking him. The attack was well-planned and the attackers knew things that were not generally known. The offices of Charlie Hebdo had been firebombed several years ago after the issue on Muhammad was published. The attackers knew the new address which was not supposed to be public knowledge. They also seemed to know that there was going to be an editorial staff meeting in the offices at the time that they attacked. They went around the office asking, Are you so-and-so [names of cartoonists, writers, editors, etc]? Those who answered, Yes, were shot and killed. Before entering the offices, the policeman guarding the entrance was shot. One of the terrorists came up to him as he lay on the ground and made sure he was dead with additional shots.

The terrorists made their motives clear. They screamed, Revenge for the Prophet Muhammad & Allahu Akbar.

On the way out, the terrorists commandeered a car, perhaps a police car. They fled from the offices of Charlie Hebdo on Boulevard Richard Lenoir in the 11th borough [arrondissement] of Paris to the 19th borough. The last that I heard was that they were surrounded by police in one of the suburbs, banlieues, of Paris.

President François Hollande arrived at the scene of the crime and was joined by other high officials. He said some of the expected platitudes, including a promise to pursue and catch the culprits. Will he understand that this event was a reward for voting in the UN Security Council in favor of setting up another Arab state to be called "Palestine," whereas the Palestinian Authority was not willing to agree that this state to be would exist at peace with Israel and that it would foreswear any future claims against Israel and would acknowledge that the Israel was a Jewish national state?

 - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Here are relevant links in French [ici] One of the attackers shouts that he took revenge for the sake of "the Prophet Muhammad" & "Charlie Hebdo is killed"
The cartoonists/writers who were murdered [ici]
François Hollande, president of France, calls this event "an act of exceptional barbarity"[ici]
Javier Solana, chief foreign affairs officer of the European Union, receives Arab/Muslim demands to censor European publications that are said to insult Islam [here]. Solana reminds  me very strongly of Pierre Laval. Solana traveled to Arab capitals to receive demands in the wake of the Muhammad Cartoons controversy and riots in late 2005 and early 2006.

Muslim Ottoman Subjects Resented the Equality Granted to Dhimmis, Non-Muslim Subjects of the Empire in 1856

The Ottoman Empire became clearly dependent on the military strength of the two main Western powers, Britain and France, in the mid-19th century. The Ottomans were threatened by rising Russian power to their northeast. Russia coveted Ottoman  territories and aspired to give the eastern Orthodox churches primacy over the Christian holy places in the Land of Israel. In this case, Russia would support the Greek Orthodox church of which the Russian Orthodox Church was an offshoot or branch.

Russia had already taken over vast territories under Ottoman suzerainty in the 18th century around 1774. These lands comprise the Crimea and  most of southern Ukraine of today. The effective rulers before the Russian conquest were the Crimean Tartars, under Ottoman suzerainty and loyal to the Ottoman sultan, who was also the Caliph of Islam.

The Crimean war of 1854-1855 focused on control of the Christian holy places, foremost among them the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, with Russia supporting Greek Orthodox dominance and  France supporting Roman Catholic claims to the same holy places. British policy was to prevent Russia from taking more land from the Ottoman Empire and thereby becoming a stronger rival empire to the British.

British and French forces defeated the Russians, preserving Ottoman territory for the Sultan and his government. Of course the British and French wanted to be rewarded. They were, and this caused the Sultan's government, called The Sublime Porte, to violate long-standing Islamic principles. One reward was to allow the building of new churches, a definitely forbidden act since the Arab-Muslim conquests of the 7th century. France was, inter alia given back the location where a Catholic church had stood during the Crusader period.

Most importantly, the Sublime Porte  issued a decree, the Hatt-i-Humayun, which 

"granted equality of civil status to Christian subjects, guaranteeing freedom of conscience and speech." [Tibawi, p 115]

This equality of dhimmis was a radical departure from past Islamic law and practice. Hence, it is no surprise that we are told by the Arab historian, A L Tibawi that

". . . the proclamation of the Hatti Humayun caused much resentment at Nabulus and Gaza ." [Tibawi, p 130]

Not only at Nablus and Gaza but among Ottoman Muslims generally. The Arab and other  Muslims [Tibawi was apparently a Christian] in the Empire hated this decree mightily. Sixty years later, during WW One, Ottoman Muslims slaughtered Armenians, fellow Ottoman subjects, some of whom were calling for Armenian autonomy or independence.  Muslims resented the demands for independence or merely autonomy among the non-Muslim subject   peoples.

Does this account, these facts, tell us any lessons for Israel.? Isn't Israel seen as an "uppity Jew" by the Arabs and other Muslims?

By the way, you can be sure that this decree was often honored more in the breach than in the observance.

MAIN SOURCE
A L Tibawi, British Interests in Palestine, 1800-1901 (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1961)

Two Aspects of the Holocaust to Keep in MInd

Israel commemorates the Holocaust in several days on the 28th of the month of Nisan, the month of Spring, which falls this year on the 28th of April, actually starting on the evening before, the evening of the 27th. This year, interestingly, it falls close in time to the Armenian commemoration of their genocide, which is on 24 April every year. Israel Radio [Qol Yisrael] discussed the Armenian genocide today on several programs. Right now Israel TV [channel 1] is running Claude Lanzmann's film, The Last of the Unjust.

First, an observation about the earlier genocide, the Armenian at the hands of Ottoman Empire, ruled during WW One by the Young Turks, a group of revolutionaries, supposed progressives. In fact, the formal name of the Young Turks' party was the Committee for Unity and Progress. Many Arab nationalists took inspiration from the Young Turks. Anwar Sadat's parents even named him after one of the Young Turks' leaders, Enver Pasha [Enver = the Turkish form of the Arabic name Anwar].

Although progressives, the Young Turks were imbued in their education with the values of Islam, especially the need for Islam and Muslims to dominate non-Muslims. To be sure, one Armenian historian, Raymond Kevorkian, located in France, wants to believe that the motive for the genocide was Turkish or Pan-Turanian nationalism, rather than Islam. This is very short-sighted but this is not the time to go into my reasoning.

Much has been written about the Jewish Holocaust. I now want to just stress two aspects.
1) The Holocaust was not restricted to Jews living in Europe. Thousands of Jews were sent to death camps in Europe from the North African countries of Libya and Tunisia. And the Germans set up labor camps for Jews in those countries. Pro-Nazi pogromists in Baghdad slaughtered local Jews in the Spring of 1941 in an orgy of violence and brutality called the Farhud. The numbers of Jews murdered range from 179 to 600 or more. It is a common mistake that the Holocaust was restricted to European Jews, or Jews living in Europe. However, Leon Poliakov, one of the most important Holocaust historians wrote long ago about the North African Jews caught up in the Holocaust crimes. Yet, the mistake is still made.

2) The Arab nationalist movement in its  majority was pro-Nazi. The Arab intellectuals who set up the Arab Socialist Ba`ath Party and the Syrian National Socialist Party [often called the Syrian Social Nationalist Party in order to hide its Nazi inspiration] were much interested in and great admirers of Nazi ideology, policies, power, and organization.

The chief leader of the Palestinian Arabs in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, Haj Amin el-Husseini, instigated the Farhud in Baghdad, according to an Iraqi investigating committee. After two days of Farhud massacres, British troops occupied Baghdad and finally suppressed the pogrom after waiting outside the city for two days. At this point Husseini fled Baghdad and made his way through Iran and Turkey to the Nazi-fascist domain in Europe. Greece, bordering on Turkey, was already occupied. While still in Baghdad, Husseini and a small group of other Arab nationalist leaders drew up a draft political statement which they wanted Hitler to make in favor of Arab nationalist ambitions. In essence, this was really a petition to Hitler to recognize what these Arab leaders saw as their rights and interests, including the right to solve the Jewish Question in the Arab lands as it was being solved in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Bernard Lewis supplies a thorough discussion of the several versions of their petition to Hitler in his book, Semites and Anti-Semites.
While in Baghdad Husseini may not have understood the full meaning of "the Final Solution." However, after speaking with Hitler in Berlin, or before, he knew that it meant genocide of the Jews. On his visit or visits to Auschwitz he was able to observe just how this Final Solution was being carried out. The Germans provided Husseini, the British-appointed Mufti of Jerusalem [1922], with a headquarters and money to support a large entourage and used him to make pro-Nazi, pro-Arab nationalist, anti-Jewish propaganda over Radio Berlin. [such as: Kill Jews wherever you find them (see Lukasz Hirszowicz, The Third Reich and the Arab East)].

In their discussion at Hitler's headquarters Hitler promised Husseini that "solving"  the Jewish Question in  the Arab lands was part of Nazi Germany's plan. Husseini, the Mufti, was "fully reassured and satisfied by the words which he had heard from the Chief of the German State. . ."  He was pleased with Hitler's promise.

Later in the war, Husseini addressed the Bosnian Muslim SS division [the Handschar, khanjar]. He told them that Nazi ideology, National Socialism, had much in common with Islam (see Joseph Schechtman's biography of Husseini, The Mufti and the Fuehrer).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

24 April 2014 -- Obama continues to evade recognizing the Armenian genocide as genocide. He issued  a statement that danced around a frank statement of the issue [here]. He still wants to protect Erdogan and Turkey and Islam in general.

Egyptian Copt Blames Obama for Abetting Egyptian Chaos

Naguib Sawiris is one of the top businessmen in Egypt and a member of the Coptic Christian minority, the purest descendants of the ancient Egyptians. He shared his views of Obama in an interview with Style, a monthly magazine of the Italian paper, Corriere della Sera, just about a month after Obama's political intervention in Egypt --Mubarak must step down-- set off the series of events that seems likely to bring the anti-peace, anti-Jewish and anti-Christian Muslim Brotherhood to power in the Land of the Nile. Sawiris' words seem prophetic:

Style: . . . your position has recently changed; you were a supporter of Barack Obama and now, on the other hand, you criticize him bitterly.
NS: Like many I had placed so many hopes on him. But he has done little, too little, and today the United States is still thrashing about in the quagmire of a deep, aggressive crisis.
[Style di Corriere della Sera, March 2011]

Style: You bemoan the lack of action of a president who in a short time carried out a reform, such as the health reform for which decades would be needed in other countries.
NS: Apart from the fact that many, including myself, do not approve the way in which the health reform was carried out. . . But what was most needed for America in these years was a policy of economic and jobs recovery. . .

NS: If I stood for election in this country, I would pick up a lot of votes.
Style: And why don't you do it?
NS: It is complicated. I am a Christian and this is a Muslim country.

NS: I must say that I don't like President Barack Obama. He projects weakness, sends the wrong message, feeds too many expectations. . .

NS: We must be very tough and have no mercy on the terrorists. Whoever kills innocent persons in the name of religion deserves to die. It doesn't seem to me that Obama is firm in the struggle against Islamic terrorism. He is too conciliatory.
Style: Do you also consider as terrorists the Palestinians who are fighting against the Israelis?
NS: Yes, if they go to Tel Aviv to put a bomb in a discotheque. Yes, when they kill women and children with Hamas' rockets. Not when they struggle in Gaza against the Israeli occupation.

Style: And as a businessman, how do you judge Obama?
NS: . . . Frankly, there is nothing about him that I like. . .

Sawiris negotiated at one stage as Mubarak was falling with Omar Suleiman and the Egyptian opposition. He wants a Marshall Plan for Egypt funded by Europe, the USA and the Gulf states, in order to create jobs and guarantee stability in Egypt. He supported Omar Suleiman for the transitional period after Mubarak and also feared constitutional chaos.

NS: And then it is important that first the Constitution should be changed because with the present constitution Egypt might fall into juridical chaos, which might benefit the Muslim Brotherhood.
[Style di Corriere della Sera, March 2011]

This last statement by Sawiris was prophetic. Now we see that Egypt is in chaos in more ways than one. Its economy is failing, the state is running out of money needed to buy basic foods abroad, Muslim mobs attack native Christians, Islamist leaders --including of the Muslim Brotherhood-- and candidates for office want to go back to a state of war with Israel, etc etc. Sawiris openly calls Obama soft on Islamic terrorism. And Obama, by pushing Mubarak out and letting his "intelligence experts" [like Clapper] pretend that the Muslim Brotherhood was moderate ["largely secular"] or even letting it be said that the United States was not opposed to religious groups taking part in the Egyptian government, helped a great deal to bring on today's chaos and crisis in Egypt which threatens Middle Eastern peace and stability in the Mediterranean region.

Sawiris founded Orascom Telecom, the largest in the Middle East, which he sold not long ago. He also is chairman of Wind telecom in Italy and has other telecom interests. Forbes lists his net worth at over $2.9 billion.

What Motivates Arabs & Muslims in the Struggle against Israel?

The Muslim religion has been a chief motivating factor for Arabs opposing a Jewish state in the Land of Israel. The Ottoman Empire settled Europeans in Israel in the late 19th century and they were welcomed by the local Muslim Arabs. Why? Because they were Muslims. The Ottoman state, in which Arabs --including Palestinian Arabs-- held high posts was a Sunni Muslim state. When the European great powers at the Congress of Berlin in 1878 assigned Austria-Hungary to take over Bosnia --then as now dominated by the Muslim minority-- from the Ottoman state, many of the Bosnian Muslims did not want to remain in Bosnia that was coming under Austro-Hungarian --that is, infidel-- rule. Thousands of Bosnian Muslims were resettled elsewhere in Ottoman territory, including a couple of thousand in Israel. They were welcomed as fellow Muslims, although they did not speak Arabic and many of them were blonds.

On the other hand, Jews were coming to Israel in the same period from many parts of the Jewish Diaspora, from Ukraine, Belarus and Rumania [an Ottoman possession up to 1878] as well as from Yemen, Morocco, Georgia, Bukhara, Iraq and so forth. Indeed, the Arab-Muslims were not so much opposed to Jews immigrating into the country in the 19th century, as they were to Jews having power, Jews not acting like inferior, oppressed and humiliated dhimmis. As long as Jewish immigrants knew their place --their inferior place-- as Jews, and paid the Islamically ordained head tax on non-Muslims, the jizya, they were treated with the usual contempt but not prevented from immigrating. However, the jizya and some of the other disabilities on dhimmis in Muslim law were abolished in the late 19th century due to European pressure on the Ottoman Empire. The local Muslim resentment of Jews increased years after abolition of the jizya and of the full dhimma [parts of the dhimma remained in effect] in the last decade of the century. Abolition of the dhimma was part of the reason for the resentment.

When the Arab League secretary general, Abdul-Rahman Azzam Pasha, threatened Jews with war if a Jewish state were set up [October 1947], he spoke in terms of a jihad lasting scores of years, like the crusader wars and the Mongol invasions. He spoke in terms of Muslim volunteers --not only Arabs-- coming from far flung zones of the domain of Islam in order to fight the Jews. Why was this so?

Robert Reilly has explained the core motives for Muslim opposition to a Jewish state within any borders. Reilly attempts to:

elucidate the source of Arab intransigence in refusing to reach an accommodation with Israel short of the restoration of all that was lost in the repeated attempts to destroy it. In fact, even that restoration may not be enough. Anyone familiar with Al Manar (. . .) TV and the general propaganda against Israel throughout the Middle East might reasonably ask if there are any conditions under which the Arab world would allow Israel to continue to exist, other than by the strength of its own arms. And if not, why not? Organizations such as Hamas, quoted above, and Hezbollah repeatedly make clear that the real problem is the very existence of Israel. But why is this a problem, and is its nature political or religious and theological? If it is the former, a negotiated settlement may be possible. If it is the latter, this is highly unlikely, if not impossible. Which is it? The answers to these questions must be sought in the heart of Islamic revelation – in the Qur’an.

Islam says nothing about states, only peoples, and these it defines through religion. How does Islam regard Judaism? In Surah 5, Allah says that He established a Covenant with the Jews and gave them His revelation. The Jews possessed the Holy Land by virtue of this Covenant. But then the Qur’an cites the offence for which the Jews are forever cursed: “they changed my words.” The Jews changed God’s words; they changed His revelation. One can only appreciate how great and unforgivable this offence is by grasping the orthodox Muslim understanding that the Qur’an has co-existed eternally with God, in heaven, in Arabic, exactly as it exists today. Within this understanding of the Qur’an, the enormity of the Jewish offence becomes clear as a blasphemous act of colossal pride, for which they lost their right to the Holy Land.

Therefore, the Jewish claim to, and exercise of, sovereignty over the Holy Land and, indeed, sovereignty over some Muslims there, on the basis of Surah 5, is an incalculable offense and, for many Muslims, simply unacceptable. This is what drives the animus against Israel’s very existence. Until someone comes up with a new interpretation of Surah 5 that is widely accepted in the Muslim world, it is hard to have a great deal of hope for the sort of peace in the Middle East that we see in Europe.

If Jewish sovereignty in Israel is incompatible with the Qur’an, the rest becomes clear. Then one sees why, when Gaza was given the chance for self-rule, it was not used to display Palestinian capacity and desire for the rule of law and democratic constitutional government, but was turned into a weapons platform against Israel. It is why, at the 2000 Camp David summit, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat turned down Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s offer of more than 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, with a capital in East Jerusalem, without even bothering to make a counter offer. By proffering a Palestinian state and substantial reparations, Israel was interested in ending the conflict. Arafat was interested in using the conflict to end Israel. Little has changed since then, including the recent Palestinian attempt to declare a state unilaterally.

Reilly contradicts the usual hokum about the Arab struggle against Israel being motivated by nationalist causes, hatred of "European colonialists" or "European intruders" [as if the Jews living in Europe were simply considered "Europeans" by the majority of Europeans], and so on. As I noted at the beginning, the Arab Muslims in the country welcomed the settlement of Europeans in the country provided that they were Muslims. The Ottoman Empire sometimes sent natives of Europe to govern parts of the country [not a distinct entity in Ottoman times]. One of these was Ahmad al-Jazzar Pasha. He was not liked but not because he was a native of Europe. So the colonialism charge against the Jews/Israelis is a red herring. Moreover, for many years about half of the Israeli Jewish population has been Oriental Jews, usually defined as Jews from Muslim countries. That didn't make a difference to Arab enemies of Israel. The Oriental Jews were fleeing Muslim lands where they had been oppressed as dhimmis for centuries. The charge of being "Europeans" is another red herring. Likewise, the charge of having a different skin color, of being "white" compared to the "non-white" Arabs made against the Jews. Indeed there is a broad range of skin colors among both Jews and Arabs, and that includes the Ashkenazi Jews who also show a range of skin colors. Reilly has explained the Muslim religious motives which keep Arabs from recognizing and making peace with Israel [here]. That said, some Arabs of Muslim background have supported Israel on Quranic or other grounds. More on one of those Arabs in another post.

Is Islamism Fascism? -- Martin Kramer Presents the Analyses for of Manfred Halpern, Maxime Rodinson, & Said Amir Arjomand

Can we really, honestly describe Islamism as fascistic or a form of fascism?

Martin Kramer quotes Manfred Halpern:

The neo-Islamic totalitarian movements are essentially fascist movements. They concentrate on mobilizing passion and violence to enlarge the power of their charismatic leader and the solidarity of the movement. They view material progress primarily as a means for accumulating strength for political expansion, and entirely deny individual and social freedom. They champion the values and emotions of a heroic past, but repress all free critical analysis of either past roots or present problems.

Halpern continued:

Like fascism, neo-Islamic totalitarianism represents the institutionalization of struggle, tension, and violence. Unable to solve the basic public issues of modern life—intellectual and technological progress, the reconciliation of freedom and security, and peaceful relations among rival sovereignties—the movement is forced by its own logic and dynamics to pursue its vision through nihilistic terror, cunning, and passion. An efficient state administration is seen only as an additional powerful tool for controlling the community. The locus of power and the focus of devotion rest in the movement itself. Like fascist movements elsewhere, the movement is so organized as to make neo-Islamic totalitarianism the whole life of its members.

See Martin Kramer here. Kramer also quotes Maxime Rodinson & Said Amir Arjomand to the same effect.

I would point out that Joseph Schumpeter writes about Arab imperialism as one form of the phenomenon in his book on the subject.

Many researchers have written books and articles on Arab-Nazi collaboration:

Daniel Carpi, Elias Cooper, Martin Cuppers, Zvi El-Peleg, Jonathan C Friedman, Klaus Gensicke, Elliott A Green, Sylvia Haim, Lukasz Hirszowicz, Elie Kedourie, Majid Khadduri (1960), Mathias Kuentzel, Bernard Lewis, Klaus-Michael Mallmann,Rafael Medoff, Robert Melka, Milos Mendel, Joseph Nevo, Francis Nicosia, Monte Penkower, Anwar Sadat (1957), Joseph Schechtman, George H Stein, Simon Wiesenthal, & David Yisraeli.

Some Ideas for Bibi on What to Say about Peace to Obama & the World

Benyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, should say a number of things to the world and Obama in his upcoming speech. He should take into consideration that some of Obama's lies and misrepresentations and distortions in the Cairo speech need to be countered.

1- He should stress the long Jewish/Israelite history in the Land of Israel going back more than 3,000 years. The kingdom of David was established around the year 1000 BCE. Jews have always lived in the Land despite massacres --mass slaughter-- by Roman and Byzantine armies, Arab invaders and occupiers [who defeated the Byzantines], and Crusaders. Jews in Exile have always tried to return to the Land when possible.

2-- It is true that Jews suffered persecution in many parts of the world, certainly in Christendom and Islam, although maybe not everywhere as Obama said in Cairo. It is also true that Jews suffered the Holocaust as a kind of culmination of centuries of Judeophobia. But Obama should not be allowed to exculpate the Arabs from guilt either for centuries of oppression/persecution/humiliation/economic exploitation of Jews or for collaboration in the Holocaust. Bibi might add that all non-Muslims under Islamic rule suffered oppression mandated by Islamic law.

3-- Arab collaboration with the Nazis and in the Holocaust was widespread among the Arab nationalists, but one man, Haj Amin el-Husseini, is emblematic of this collaboration. Husseini [Husayni] was the British-appointed mufti of Jerusalem and head of the British-created Supreme Muslim Council. The British tolerated his attacks on Jews --perpetrated by his followers-- in the 1920s and 1930s and even encouraged them. The British also enlarged the scope of Hitler's victims by preventing Jews from escaping from the Nazi-controlled domain in Europe. Hence, the British violated the international commitment they had made to the League of Nations to facilitate development of the Jewish National Home. Like Obama and his administration today, who rail against "Jewish settlements," the British forbid Jews to buy real estate in most of the Jewish National Home. The UK violated international law in harming Jews and their rights and violated their commitment to the Jewish people. How can Israel trust the UK or its cultural offshoot, the English-speaking USA? Neither power did anything major to save Jews during the Holocaust, whereas the British deliberately prevented escape.

4-- Hamas and Hizbullah, which the Obama administration wants to chat with, have clearly stated Nazi principles regarding the Jews. Hamas openly advocates genocide of Jews in its charter, Article 7. The German Nazis never openly advocated genocide of Jews. Hamas and Hizbullah must be taken at their world.

5-- It seems that the Obama administration is trying to disavow commitments made to Israel by previous administrations in return for Israeli concessions. Obama is trying to bury his forerunner Bush's understandings with Israel about the legitimacy of Jewish settlement in Judea-Samaria.

Obama Affirms Evil, Sinister Anti-Jewish Racism in Cairo Speech

More Links Added at bottom 6-5-2009 & 7-20-2009

Obama's Cairo speech reaffirmed the long-standing anti-Jewish racism of US State Department policy by opposing and denying the Jewish right to live in parts of the ancient Jewish homeland -Judea & Samaria- recognized by the international community in a series of legal acts and decisions as parts of the Jewish National Home.

The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

This is an evil, sinister position. It threatens the right of Jewish residence in all countries throughout the world. It ought to be condemned by decent people everywhere. Note that Obama used the word "legitimacy" rather than "legality." That is because the State Department is aware that the Jews have a legal right to live in those places, although these Judeophobic bigots don't want Jews in those places.

Again, bear in mind that Obama's position is not his own position particularly. John Foster Dulles back in the 1950s claimed that it was in the American interest to ally with the "staunchly anti-Communist" Arab/Muslim world [to use a term common at the time in media mouthpieces for the State Dept, such as Time and Life mags]. Dulles formed the Baghdad Pact for this purpose, an ostensibly anti-Soviet alliance that excluded Israel. The main stream media of the time praised Saudi Arabia as a "desert democracy" that was inimical to Communism.

What Obama is doing is promoting Dulles' old policy with a brown face, presumably making it less obviously Judeophobic, less imperialistic, more "leftist" and egalitarian, blah blah blah. In the 1950s, Dulles openly excluded Israel from his alliance with Arabs and Muslims, insinuating that Israel as a Jewish state was closer to Communists than the Arabs were.

Obama's speech acknowledges that

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust.

But he does not acknowledge specifically that Arabs and other Muslims persecuted Jews "for centuries" -actually since Muhammad's time, 1400 years ago-- as mandated by the tenets of their religion in the Quran, the Hadith, Muslim jurisprudence and legal writings, etc. On this point, Dulles was more honest than Obama, acknowledging in Congressional committee testimony that Arab hatred of Jews went back to Muhammad.

Nor does Obama acknowledge that Arabs collaborated in the Holocaust, attributing the Judeophobia ["anti-Semitism"] that led to the Holocaust solely to Europe, overlooking the palestinian Arab leader, Haj Amin el-Husseini [al-Husayni], British-appointed mufti of Jerusalem who collaborated in the Holocaust, urging Arabs over Radio Berlin to "Kill Jews wherever you find them." Husseini was only one of the Arab and other Muslim Holocaust collaborators. Husseini lived in Berlin for most of WW2, surrounded by an entourage of members of the leading Palestinian Arab families, including Khalidis, relatives of Obama's friend Rashid Khalidi and Arab propagandist, Walid Khalidi, who is comfortably ensconced at Harvard.

What Obama is doing is giving an old policy a new face. After all, he claims to be a "liberal," whatever that means today. He is a Democrat, claiming sympathy for the poor and the working class, whereas Dulles was a Republican, frankly avowing his sympathy for Big Business. Obama is brown-skinned, Dulles was white-skinned. Yet, the policy toward Israel and the Arabs is the same, albeit Dulles was more honest about it.

There is a lot more to say about his praise of Islam, overlooking the big blemishes like the oppression of dhimmis, like slavery, like the belief in perpetual jihad war until the whole world is brought under Islamic law. His ascription of the Renaissance and Enlightenment to Islamic civilization is ridiculously and grossly exaggerated while the destruction of older civilizations by Islamic jihad wars goes unmentioned by him. No doubt Obama's speech will get much more analysis and others will likely take up the many facets of it that need analysis and criticism. [here is one analysis-critique & Daniel Pipes' view & Hugh Fitzgerald's take & Egyptian Sandmonkey's too & Michael Rubin's & Martin Peretz' & Raymond Ibrahim's & Melanie Philips' & Barry Rubin's & Caroline Glick's & Gerald Steinberg's & Efraim Zuroff's & Giorgio Israel (in Il Foglio in Italian) & Michael Young of Beirut] & Elizabeth Berney.
& Morton Klein's take added 7-23-2009 [Klein is president of the Zionist Organization of America].

But the anti-Jewish Racism of Obama's hostility to Jews exercising their human and national rights by living in Judea-Samaria is what ought to be borne in mind at this time.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Just as a post-script, Obama is supposed to meet in Egypt with leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood who hold frankly Judeophobic views, and indeed are hostile to all non-Muslims. This is a sinister event that may mean some very horrid outcomes in the future.