Why Do the Arabs Oppose Recognizing a Jewish State?

Prime Minister Netanyahu suggested to US  secretary of state John Kerry that the framework he was drawing up for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority include Palestinian Arab recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, as the nation-state of the Jewish people. Kerry did intend to include this Israeli proposal but since has backed away from it in view of Arab opposition, first of all from Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah and Palestinian Authority. Just today, the Arab League voted its support for Abbas' position.

One of the justifications for this opposition that apologists for the PA/PLO present is that by Israel being a Jewish state, the civil rights of Arab citizens of Israel would be adversely affected. However, all states belonging to the Arab League define themselves as Arab states. All Arab League member states but Lebanon define themselves constitutionally as Islamic states in one way or another. This does not stop them from opposing Israel being defined as a Jewish national state. The arguments against Israel as a Jewish state could logically be applied to Arab and Islamic states, and with more justification, since we have the benefit of hindsight to know just how non-Arabs and non-Muslims have been treated in Arab states.

The explanation for the Arab position lies, I believe, in the traditional Arab-Muslim view of Jews as an inferior dhimmi people, a millet [see below] devoid of national rights, and only entitled to live if they pay a yearly head tax on dhimmis called the jizya. The dhimma system applied to all non-Muslims who were subjects of the Islamic state, with individual exceptions. Within this system, the Jews were at the bottom of the barrel, at least in the Fertile Crescent  countries, including the Levant, where the Jews' status was inferior to that of their fellow dhimmis, the Christians.

Whereas the Quran and medieval Arab historiography, such as the writings of Ibn Khaldun, recognize the Jews as a nation or people, the entrenched Islamic view of Jews as an evil, inferior contemptible millet is now dominant. Moreover, in fact, in practice, that was the actual status of Jews in the Arab-Muslim countries for centuries. Even today in the 21st century Muslims believe that Jews do not deserve the dignity of having a national state of their own, the Quran and the old Arab historians notwithstanding.

This contemptuous view of Jews is clearly stated by the PLO in its charter. Article 20, already denies that the Jews are a people, claiming that they are merely a "religious" group. Jewish tradition holds that the Jews are both a people and a  religious group. Here is the relevant text of Art. 20:

"The claim of historical or religious ties between Jews and Palestine does not tally with historical realities nor with the constituents of statehood in their true sense. Judaism in its character as a religion is not a nationality with an independent existence. Likewise the Jews are not one people with an independent identity. They are rather citizens of the states to which they belong."

Note the contempt for Jews which oozes from this text. The history of Israelite/Jewish kingdoms in the country, as well as of the Roman province of Judea, is denied. The setting of much of the Hebrew Bible lies in the Land Of Israel which the PLO denies in a way reminiscent of Holocaust denial. Further, Jews do not have "the constituents of statehood in their true sense." Just by the way, the Nazis and other German Judeophobes claimed that the Jews were not capable of being a "state-forming nation." [see Francis R  Nicosia, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press 1985)].

For texts of the PLO charter and the  Hamas charter, see here.
- - - - - - - - -
Addition: in ancient Greek Jews were sometimes referred to as Ethnous Ioudaion, Jewish nation.
millet -- Turkish word referring to a recognized, organized religio-ethnic community within the Ottoman Empire [from the Arabic word milla or millatun, meaning originally people or nation but in Turkish usage referring specifically to the legally inferior communities of dhimmis (zimmis in Turkish), who were in turn the non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic states]. The millet was charged with keeping order among its members and often charged with collecting the jizya tax from them, and the millet enjoyed a certain religious autonomy and authority over its members, provided that Islamic restrictions on dhimmis were not violated. The traditional millets were the Armenians, Ermeni millet, like the Jews a religio-ethnic community, the Jews, a millet within the Ottoman Empire and also including Samaritans defined as Jews in Muslim tradition; as well as Greek Orthodox Christians, who were called I believe Rumi millet. The Greek Orthodox millet included Arabic-speaking Christians as well as other Eastern Orthodox Christians, such as Vlakhs [the old name for Rumanians], Bulgars, Serbs, etc. In the 19th century up to 1914, eleven millets were added to the original three, with the new millets representing ethnic subdivisions of the Greek Orthodox.There were no doubt nuances of the law in effect in different places.

The "Peace Process" Is a War Process -- Daniel Pipes Realizes

UPDATING 4-19-2010 see at bottom

The "peace process" means peace of mind for antisemites.

Daniel Pipes made some quite correct observations about the "peace process" in a recent column.
They should be obvious to everyone but are not. Pipes makes these observations while writing about the "silver lining" of the present Israel-USA contretemps.

First, the "peace process" is in actuality a "war process." Diplomatic negotiations through the 1990s led to a parade of Israeli retreats that had the perverse effect of turning the middling-bad situation of 1993 into the awful one of 2000. Painful Israeli concessions, we now know, stimulate not reciprocal Palestinian goodwill but rather irredentism, ambition, fury, and violence.
. . . .
Fourth, U.S.-Israel tensions increase Palestinian intransigence and demands. Israel in bad standing empowers their leaders; and if the tensions arise from U.S. pressure for concessions to the Palestinians, the latter sit back and enjoy the show. This happened in mid-2009, when Mahmoud Abbas instructed Americans what to extract from Jerusalem. . . [here]

As a Jerusalemite, I can confirm Pipes' observation that the peace process is a war process. The more "peace processing" going on, the more Arab terrorism. More Israeli withdrawals or concessions of territory lead to rockets from Gaza and Lebanon. We live in an Orwellian world.

And of course, Washington hostility to Israel just encourages the intransigence of Arabs who have no desire to make peace with Israel and are inspired by Washington's hostility to Israel. Indeed, hostility to Jews is deeply embedded in the Muslim religion since Muhammad. Likewise the belief in perpetual war against the infidels is embedded in Islam --with truces, to be sure, when the infidels are stronger. The Quran does not make peace a supreme principle but rather war to subdue and humiliate the infidels and make them pay tribute. This is enunciated in Quran 9:29 in regard to Jews and Christians specifically.

Of course, some Arabs prefer peace to war. But an Arab leader/ruler has to justify peace --needs an excuse for peace-- by pointing to the greater strength of the infidel, in this case Israel. By weakening Israel strategically through territorial concessions of strategic areas needed for defense (such as the Jordan Valley and the north-south Judea-Samaria mountain ridge), Israel becomes obviously weaker. In this case, leaders/rulers who prefer peace would lose their excuse for peace because Israel would seem obviously weaker.

And all of the above does not deal with the issue of denying the human and civil rights of Jews by, for example, forbidding them to live in parts of Jerusalem. Yet Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority population since the mid-19th century, since 1853 at least, according to the French historian and diplomat of that time, Cesar Famin, whose figures were published by Karl Marx in an article in the New York Tribune, Horace Greeley's paper, on 15 April 1854. Furthermore, Arab forces began driving Jews out of parts of Jerusalem in December 1947. These parts became parts of what was the Judenrein "Arab East Jerusalem" for 19 years between 1948 and 1967, a sector of the city occupied by the Arab Legion of Jordan. This is in addition to the importance of Jerusalem to the world, especially to Christians and Muslims, being due to its ancient role in Jewish history and religion.

Obama's anti-Israel policy, his favoring of a racist anti-Jewish apartheid policy is dangerous, threatening and repugnant. However, as Pipes says, it may have its silver lining.
- - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 4-19-2010 Lebanese blogger Tony Badran writes about how Syrian thug-in-chief, Bashar Assad, views peace and war:
"Assad’s mantra is that 'peace and resistance are two sides of the same coin.' As he sees things, it’s not either peace or resistance. For him the two are simultaneous tools of attrition, with peace talks providing Syria with impunity as Assad pursues “resistance.” In his conceptual framework, the peace process is just warfare by other means." [here]
Veteran "peace processor", Aaron David Miller, looks at the "process" and at Washington's ME policy more skeptically now. He compares it to a dogmatic religion [here]. Rick Richman comments on Miller's comments [here]
Youssef Ibrahim of the NYSun, formerly ME correspondent for the NY Times, quotes from and comments on A D Miller's article [here]. Ibrahim shows that the so-called "palestinian" issue is not the main concern of several important Arab govts. Yet the Obama gang keeps on hawking that issue's supposed centrality to Arab and Middle Eastern concerns like a huckster in the marketplace, although nobody's buying.

Reformed Rabbi: Obama Breeds Climate of Hate Against Jews

The Peace Process, peace of mind for antisemites

Rabbi: Obama Breeds Climate of Hate Against Jews
Wednesday, June 10, 2009

By: Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz

Our new president did not tell a virulent anti-Semite to travel to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington to kill Jews, but he is most certainly creating a climate of hate against us.
It is no coincidence that we are witnessing this level of hatred toward Jews as President Barack Obama positions America against the Jewish state.

Just days ago Obama traveled to Cairo, Egypt. It was his second trip in a short time to visit Muslim countries. He sent a clear message by not visiting Israel. But this was code.

In Cairo, Obama said things that pose a grave danger to Jews in Israel, in America and everywhere. And if his views are not vigorously opposed they will help create a danger as great as that posed by the Nazis to the Jewish people.

Just last week, Obama told his worldwide audience — more than 100 million people — that the killing of six million Jews during the Holocaust was the equivalent of Israel’s actions in dealing with the Palestinians.
This remark is incredible on its face, an insult to the six million Jews who died as a result of Hitler’s genocide — and it is a form of revisionism that will bode evil for Jews for years to come.
While Obama acknowledged that “six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today” — his discussion about the Holocaust was followed by this statement: “On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.”

“On the other hand . . . ”?

Obama’s clever construct comparing the mass genocide of six million Jews to the Palestinian struggle will not be lost on the estimated 100 million Muslims who tuned into to hear him.
Perhaps it was not lost on James W. von Brunn, the 88-year-old white supremacist identified as the alleged attacker Wednesday at the Holocaust Museum. He apparently felt that he could easily take retribution against the Jews for the atrocities Obama implies they are guilty of.

At first blush Mr. Obama’s speech seemed rosy, optimistic — one that espoused tolerance and understanding. If you scratch the surface it is a dangerous document that history will view as a turning point for America and Israel — one that will lead to dangerous times ahead for both Jews and believing Christians.

The immediate danger posed by Obama’s speech is in its incredible re-writing of the history of Jews, Christians and Muslims from Medieval times to the present. Obama, continually throughout his speech, talks of Islam’s peaceful intent. And while there are certainly Koranic verses that support this interpretation, Islam has a long and bloody history of violence against fellow Muslims, Jews and Christians.

Has Obama not heard about the Muslim’s violent conquest of the Middle East, Spain and half of Western Europe? Was he never taught that the Crusades sought to turn back this Muslim onslaught that demanded subjugated populations convert or die?
In his almost hour-long speech, there is not a single word about Islam’s well known and checkered past.

Ironically, the American president offered plenty of references to what he sees are America’s evils, such as its “colonialism” and history of slavery. “For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation,” Obama told his audience, citing a litany of American shortcomings. He failed to mention that Arab Muslims were the greatest slave traders in the history of humanity.

According to Obama, Israelis, too, are guilty of wrongdoing, especially when it comes to their supposed maltreatment of the Palestinians.
Isn’t it odd an American president would go to a foreign country and slander his own country and its long-time ally?
At the same time he praises — unconditionally — a religion and culture that has a long history of being antithetical to the very values that have made America a great nation

Mr. Obama even has the unbelievable gall, when talking about the treatment of Muslim women, to condemn Western countries for attempting to stop Muslim women from using the full facial cover, or hijab. This is a symbol of Muslim subjugation of women.
Listen to what Obama said: “Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit - for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.”

And Obama not only ignores the gross subjugation of women in many Arab societies — he does not mention even once the almost total religious intolerance throughout the Muslim world against Christians and Jews. In his speech, Obama’s only plea for Muslim women living in Muslim countries is that they should be afforded an education.
How about a discussion of the beheading of Arab women for “crimes” such as adultery? How about the malicious treatment of women in Muslim countries who choose not to wear the hijab?
Obama insists that Islam has promoted tolerance and that in Islamic societies such ideals have flourished.

Obama claimed that “as a student of history” he understands more than most the truth about “civilization's debt to Islam.” He added, “And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”
Does he not know that a Jew or Christian would be beheaded in Saudi Arabia for practicing their religion today, now, this minute?
Of course, Obama offers not one example of where religious freedom is truly tolerated in the Muslim world. Yet, he proudly told his audience that in every state of the union and throughout the U.S. there exist more than 1,200 mosques.
But why, Mr. President, is there no Christian Church or Jewish synagogue operating within the borders of Saudi Arabia? Not even one.
Why in many countries, including your host Egypt, Christian churches have suffered vicious and continual persecution? Why is a once vibrant Cairo Jewish community — a home for the likes of Maimonides — today practically extinct?
Why, dear president, has the ancient Christian community in the West Bank and places like Bethlehem been almost completely wiped out by the modern Muslim onslaught?

“On the other hand,” to quote you Mr. President, you avoided mentioning some other truths.
Let’s start with the Israeli Arabs who can claim one of the highest standards of living in the Arab world. Indeed, they have more rights than Arabs in any Muslim country, their religious freedom is completely protected, and they even vote in free elections.
Tell me what Muslim country matches Israel’s record in protecting its minorities?
Even Arabs in the West Bank, during the time of Israeli control, saw their standard of living rise dramatically. Today, Arabs there are among the best educated in the world, thanks to Israel.
In your revisionist view, Israel has acted to harm these people. But it was not Israel that could not abide by United Nations resolutions clearly setting borders for both the state of Israel and an entity that had never existed before named Palestine.
You cleverly omitted any discussion of these facts, or the continual attacks against the state of Israel over six decades by its Muslim neighbors. Nor is it the Israelis who persecute from time to time the Coptic Christians of Egypt.
No, Mr. President, I do not accept your assertion that you are seeking religious tolerance or that you are seeking to protect Jews. I do not accept it because you are inventing a false history to fit your own agenda.
Mr. President, I am deeply disturbed that you would offer such a distortion of truth in the hopes of creating a lasting peace. A lasting peace cannot be created out of lies, distortions and half truths.
You profess to be a Christian. But you seem more intent on protecting Muslims. In your speech you talked openly of your Muslim heritage, your admiration of their way of life, and so forth. You said in your speech that you have made one of your chief aims of your presidency repairing the image of Islam.
Why did you hide these views from the American public during the recent presidential campaign?
Why, as president, did you fully bow to the Saudi king, who refuses to allow any religious freedom for any Christian or Jew?
You have made clear, by your words and assertions, that you are re-positioning the United States away from Israel, America’s lone democratic ally in the Mid-East.
You have made clear through your statements and those of your minions that Israel should, under no circumstances, prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
And yes, you have promised to retaliate against Iran if it ever attacks Israel with nuclear weapons.
But you know full well that if Iran succeeds in its admitted goal of “wiping the Jewish state off the map” — and hits this tiny nation with nuclear warheads — there will be no Israel for the U.S. to retaliate on behalf of.
Some Jews may be naïve, but we are not stupid.

Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz is a member of the Reform movement of Judaism and serves as a chaplain for the State of New York. A former Navy and Marine Corps officer and chaplain, he has also served as deputy national chaplain for the Jewish War Veterans of the United States.
© 2009 Newsmax.

Rabbi Pomerantz' outcry from the heart is especially welcome since he is a Reform rabbi and many of his fellows in the Reform movement have actively taken the side of the Obama administration and the State Department in calling for Obama to put pressure on Israel to do theState Dept's bidding. I was recently informed by a friend, a trusted historical researcher in the United States, that the Ford Foundation made an agreement with some institutions of the Reformed Jewish movement to finance efforts by these bodies to work for a more "evenhanded" US policy towards Israel. What does this mean? Will Reform bodies lie on behalf of the Obama adminstration against Israel? This is shocking news, especially since funds from the Reform movement were used to organize the anti-Israel hate campaign at the Durban I meeting in Durban, South Africa in September 2001 [on this, see research articles by Edwin Black for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, JTA].

Another recent case is a statement by Reform rabbis calling on Obama to pressure Israel to evacuate so-called "illegal outposts." Perhaps these rabbis forget that even Jewish settlers are human beings. And human beings are living in these outposts. Are they really "illegal" or just unauthorized or just inconvenient for State Dept policy? Have these rabbis inquired of the inhabitants of the outposts just why they are there? Have they committed a moral crime of some sort or are they "obstacles to peace" as the Obama administration says. To be sure, the Bush administration said the same. It makes no difference. These claims are offensive. Obama said in his Cairo speech that

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.

Besides the bullying tone, Obama is making two false and offensive claims:
1-- that Israel ever agreed to stop all settlements. This is false. Indeed, the Obama administration is deliberately overlooking the agreement of the Bush administration to accept Jewish settlements in the main settlement blocs, where building would continue.
2-- that Jews living in Judea-Samaria are "obstacles to peace." In the Cairo speech, Obama claimed that building in settlements "undermines efforts to achieve peace." This is racism against Jews. This is also blaming Jews in advance for any future warfare. After all, if settlements or building in them "undermines peace," then continued building or continued habitation by Jews in them "undermines peace." So, by Obama and State Dept logic, settlers and any Israeli govt that allows settlements are undermining peace, and promoting a future war. That's a pretty clever verbal trick on Obama's part, fully justifying Rabbi Pomerantz's argument.

Moreover, it is not clear whether Obama is saying that all continued habitation by Jews in Judea-Samaria is illegitimate or only continued building of settlements and/or building in them. Either way the claim is racist and --furthermore-- has no foundation in international law. But slick politicians like Obama like to insinuate or suggest or imply notions that they cannot state explicitly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Unfortunately, there is a minor historical error in the rabbi's appeal:
. . . this Muslim onslaught that demanded subjugated populations convert or die. . .
Actually, this statement of the purposes of jihad warfare ought to be amended to read: . . . demanded subjugated populations convert or die or pay tribute [Quran 9:29].
To be fair to Rabbi Pomerantz, there were times when Muslim armies did not give conquered and defeated kufar [unbelievers] the choice of paying tribute and simply offered them the choice of conversion or death.

Obama vows to promote genocide process called "peace process"

What has happened in and to Israel since the Oslo Accords [9-1993] has demonstrated that it was a tragic mistake at best to try to make peace with the PLO. The number of Israeli victims of Arab terrorism has increased manifold since Oslo, fifteen years ago, compared with the fifteen preceding years. Jewish rights in the Land of Israel have been reduced and --in Judea-Samaria-- have been almost obliterated. The PLO has never changed its charter which vows to destroy Israel in several verbal formulations. Somehow Clinton was persuaded to accept the swindle of PLO charter changes which never occurred. Meanwhile, arch-terrorist arafat has died to be replaced by Holocaust-denier Abu Mazen and by the Hamas which is even franker in its genocidal aims than is the Fatah. There has not been anything going on worthy of being called a "peace process." Yet the diplomats continue to heave and churn in their nefarious efforts for the "peace process" cause. The electronic and print media, the schools from K to university level, the mosque preachers, in Judea-Samaria [Fatah-dominated] and Gaza [Hamas-dominated] continue to incite genocidal hatred of Jews, slanders against Jews medieval and modern from the Muslim Hadith to the Protocols and Hitlerite ravings. This mass murder incitement cannot but have an effect on future events, basically vitiating any hope for real peace. Yet the peace-processors churn on and on.

As expected, champion faker, Barack Obama, George Bush's true successor in the White House, has taken up the relay for genocide from Bush's administration. He assured Holocaust-denier Abu Mazen that the murder process must go on:

"Obama promised that he'll continue efforts to push the peace process forward in order to arrive at a two state solution," Erekat said. "He said he will work with both the Palestinians and the Israelis to achieve peace, which is in the interest of both parties"

This was according to Abu Mazen's advisor Sa'eb Erikat, a propagandist trained in communications skills by US taxpayer funds supplied through the USAID working through the PASSIA. It is no wonder that zbig brzzzzzzki's protege hastens to support the "peace process." Of course, there is nothing peaceful about it. The only peace in the "peace process" is peace of mind for antisemites.

Those who doubt this should ask why the "peace process" includes Syria, the govt of which has slaughtered tens of thousands of its own citizens, suppresses freedom of expression, democracy, etc. , and also spreads Nazi-like lies against Jews [not only against Israel], such as the lie about Jewish ritual murder. Former Syrian "defense" minister Mustafa Tlas finds Jewish ritual murder in the 1840 Damascus Affair in which scores of Jews were tortured to force confessions. Tlas tortures his fellow Arab Syrians. Why wouldn't he do it to Jews? What kind of peace could ensue from a "peace" accord with these Arab Nazis?

The more important question perhaps is why Washington is so eager to build up Syria, knowing its many crimes in Syria itself, in Lebanon, its participation in terrorism against American troops in Iraq, and its sponsorship for genocidal anti-Jewish terrorists in Judea-Samaria and Gaza.

Those who want to believe that Obama is not racist against Jews should ask him and his flunkeys two questions:

1-- Why has he never spoken out in favor of pardon or clemency for Jonathan Pollard? Doesn't Pollard have rights under the 8th Amendment to the US constitution that forbids "cruel and unusual punishments"? This is asked in view of the light sentences given to non-Jewish spies, including an Arab spying for Egypt, in the same period when Pollard was sentenced. Don't Jews have human rights, civil rights?

2- Why doesn't Obama defend the right of Jews to live in Judea-Samaria and Gaza? If Blacks have rights to live wherever they like in America, why don't Jews have the right to live in Judea-Samaria, part of the Land of Israel? Would Obama support exclusion of Jews from certain areas of the United States? If he doesn't support Jewish rights of residence in the Jewish homeland, why should he support them in the USA? Does Obama support the use of armed force by US Army and US marshals to enforce equal residence rights for Blacks in the USA [which has happened], why shouldn't Israel use its armed forces to support Jewish residence rights in the Land of Israel?

Now, if Obama and his fellow Democrats were really against Bush Jr, why didn't they challenge Bush Jr's policy against Jewish settlement and housing construction in Judea-Samaria???
In foreign policy Obama looks to be a more virulent, more destructive version of Bush.

Obama has many Judeophobic advisors. Melanie Philips and others have mentioned zbig, McPeak, Scowcroft, and so on. The least to be said about these advisors is that they are dominated by oldtimers from carter's harmful administration up through Clinton's. This belies of course obama's claim to represent Change, the New, the Innocent, the Untainted, the Uncorrupt ad nauseam.
- - - - - - - -
Coming: More on Zbig's schemes, Obama's dishonesty, the "Left's" lies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, archeology, propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc.