.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Emet m'Tsiyon

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Britain wanted to use Arabs to protect its interests in the Middle East

The French scholar of the Middle East, Pierre Rondot, asserts that Britain wanted to use the Arabs to protect British Middle Eastern interests. It is noteworthy that Rondot was a strong sympathizer of the Arabs against Israel and Zionism, yet, being French, he did not have a motive to cover up British policies and motives.
Great Britain, for reasons both of fact and sentiment, continues to be with the Arab nation; its favor in 1917 towards Zionism, its resignation to the arrangements of 1920 [at the San Remo Conference?] do not allow it to forget its essential design, which is to entrust the care of its transit interests in the Near East to an alliance with the Arabs; it also emancipated, as soon as it could, Transjordan (treaty of 1928) and Iraq (treaty of 1930); it also ended up during the second world conflict [WW2], as the patron if not the inventor of the 'Arab League,' evolving in the first days of peace [after WW2] towards the even more concrete projects of 'Greater Syria' and 'The Fertile Crescent.' [p 124]
La Grande Bretagne, pour des raisons de fait comme de sentiment, ne cesse pas d'etre avec la nation arabe; sa faveur de 1917 envers le sionisme, sa resignation aux accomodements de 1920 ne lui fait pas oublier son dessin essentiel, qui est de confier a` une alliance arabe le soin de ses interets de transit en Proche-Orient; aussi emancipe-t-elle, de`s qu'elle le peut, Transjordanie (traite de 1928) et Iraq (traite de 1930); aussi aboutira-t-elle , au cours du second conflit mondial, au patronage sinon a` l'invention de la 'Ligue arabe,' pour evoluer aux premiers jours de la paix vers les projets plus concrets encore de la 'Grande Syrie' et du 'Croissant Fertile.'
[Pierre Rondot, Les Chretiens de l'Orient (Paris: Peyronnet 1966), p 124]
Rondot was not British and was not beholden to the British government. Therefore, he was not compelled or induced to cover up the true British policy in the Middle East. Today, unofficial spokesmen for Britain and unofficial defenders of British policy pretend that Britain was solidly pro-Zionist and pro-Jewish before the rise of the State of Israel. That's just another of the big lies now circulating so widely. The chomskys and edward saids compulsively propound the lie of British favoritism for Zionism, whereas the truth was the opposite. Rondot clearly says that Britain was pro-Arab. Earlier posts on this blog have pointed to British encouragement for establishing the Arab League, while British enthusiasm for the League was greater than that among the Arabs themselves. Britain propounded the Arab League notion at the same time that it was serving as a silent partner in Hitler's Holocaust of the Jews.

Now, with Condi Rice's tragic Annapolis Conference over, but leaving ominous signs for the future, we can say that the United States seems to be taking over the pro-Arab role of Britain, while the State Department asserts in a pro forma manner that it wants peace for the Jews. Arab spokesmen, Sa'eb Erikat and Nabil Abu Rudeyna, spokesmen for terrorist leader, Mahmud Abbas, are already denying, today, 28 November 2007, that anything agreed on at Annapolis binds them or obliges them in any way and that they made no concessions at Annapolis. We can expect that in the future, the Bush White House and the State Department will criticize or even punish Israel for not fulfilling supposed commitments made by Israel at Annapolis. But they will not criticize or punish the PLO/Arab/PA side for any barbarity or violation of commitments. More or less like British policy up to 1948.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Coming: the lies and falsehoods that Annapolis was based on, propaganda, peace follies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron and the Land of Israel, etc.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Quote from Israel's ambassador to the UN

Back in 1979, Yehuda Blum said the following:

Stop the Annapolis Conference for War & Genocide!!!

olmert is not a legitimate prime minister!! No concession of Jewish national rights that he makes at Annapolis --or has already made in the past-- has any legitimacy or validity!!

The latest olmert scandal is that today, 25 November 2007, the Israeli police were supposed to release their recommendations as to whether or not to prosecute him for crimes of corruption in the Bank Leumi case, which is only one of the four or five corruption scandals that olmert has been involved in. Three of these corruption cases have been under criminal investigation for a few months, and less formal investigation before that. The Bank Leumi scandal was investigated by the State Controller who recommended prosecution to the Attorney General. The latter personage is another corrupt character who is delaying prosecution in this and other cases on account of his anti-national ["leftist"] political leanings. The police recommendation is probably for prosecution of olmert in this case because otherwise there would not have been pressure by forces unnamed to delay announcement of the police recommendation.

In any event, Bush and Condi and the State Department are pretending that they are negotiating with a legitimate Israeli prime minister at Annapolis. But they know better. They are conscious promoters of the Arab racist and imperialist cause against Israel. They have become conscious supporters of Arab terrorism, and faciliators of terrorism. By encouraging Arab anti-Israel terrorism, they encourage Islamic terrorism everywhere --including against the United States, their own country.

Bush, Condi and the State Department have invited Syria to the Annapolis Conference. Thus, they knowingly encourage and support an established state that is a terrorist state, a gangster state that has designs to rule its neighbor Lebanon and denies Lebanon's sovereignty. Syria has used its agents in Lebanon to assassinate political leaders, members of parliament, prime ministers, former prime ministers, and journalists in Lebanon who opposed Syrian control of that country. Syria is a gangster state that spreads Nazi-like propaganda against the Jews. Yet, Bush --who pretends to be against terrorism and in favor of international law and order-- pleaded with the Syrian gangsters in chief to come to Condi's Annapolis garden party where pieces of Israel's living body will be served to the guests as hors-d'oeuvres.

We all know that Mahmud Abbas [Abu Mazen is his terrorist nom de guerre] is an unreformed terrorist who pretends to be moderate and favor peace. But words are cheap as we all know. We were promised "peace" at the time that the Oslo accord was signed in Washington on the White House lawn. Our lives became much much worse after Oslo and only constant vigilance by Israel's heroic Army and Border Guard keep us protected from mass murderers today.

One of Condi's demands was that Israel stop building in Jewish communities in Judea & Samaria, called "settlements" by Condi's guided press and media. Judea & Samaria are the heart of the ancient Jewish homeland. Indeed, the Land of Israel as a whole [grosso modo] was called Judea by the Roman Empire in its heyday. Judea & Samaria of today are also parts of the Jewish National Home set up by the San Remo Conference [1920], endorsed by the League of Nations [1922], confirmed by the UN in its charter [Article 80], and NOT cancelled by the UN partition plan recommended by the General Assembly on 29 November 1947. To prevent Jews from inhabiting the heart of their ancient homeland is RACIST, besides showing contempt for international law. Of course, Israel's enemies, including the State Department, the British Foreign Office, the Arab League states, and the EU Commission make opposing claims in order to further their Judeophobic plans. Honest people will express contempt for the corrupt machinations of Israel's enemies. Bush, Condi, the State Department and the British Foreign Office support anti-Jewish racism!

Annapolis is a political crime. It endangers decent people everywhere, even those Arabs who may want real peace. Annapolis promotes terrorism, war, and genocide!!! It is not legitimate. Its decisions and conclusions will not be legitimate.


Labels: , , ,

Thursday, November 22, 2007

More on Nadia Abu el-Haj's Frauds

UPDATING ADDITION as of 12-14-2007

Since I last posted on Nadia Abu el-Haj, Columbia University gave her undeserved tenure.

The Current, a publication at Columbia, invited three scholars [Fall 2007 issue] to consider Abu el-Haj's book, which apparently won her tenure. Tenure means that a professor cannot be dismissed. [Here is the link]. These scholars are David Rosen, an anthropologist, James Russell, a specialist in Armenian studies, and Dr Jonathan Rosenbaum, President of Gratz College in Philadelphia. Let's just take a few quotes from Rosen and Russell and comment on them.

David Rosen, Professor of anthropology, Fairleigh Dickinson University:
Facts on the Ground takes issue with the archeological exhibition at Burnt House, a museum located in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem's Old City. The official interpretation is that Burnt House is the home of a wealthy Jewish family, possibly of the priestly class, that was destroyed during the Roman siege and conquest of Jerusalem in 70 AD. El-Haj participated in a tour of this Museum and other related sites along with an "American writer" and a "British archeologist," both of whom are unnamed. El-Haj recounts that during the tour, the unnamed and uncited American writer whom she describes as "having authored several books and articles on the politics of archeology in Israel" objected to the established narrative of Burnt House. He argued that the destruction of the house might have resulted from class conflict among Jews in Jerusalem, the result of the simmering anger against Jerusalem's nobility by working class laborers whom Herod the Great had imported to build the temple. He postulated that Burnt House might have been burnt down by an angry Jewish mob long prior to 70 CE. The curator countered that a coin found at the site and dated to approximately 66 CE suggests that the house was burnt close to the 70 CE time period. (The building of Herod's Temple began in about 19 BCE. Herod died in 4 BCE, but the building project may have continued well past his death.) El-Haj counters that this evidence does not preclude the possibility that the site, including the House, may have been burnt down more than once. The unnamed "British archeologist" apparently adds another view by asserting that "most cities burn every twenty to twenty five years."
The point here is that El-Haj suggests there are possible interpretations other than the established narrative. If the Museum were to present either the class struggle narrative or the natural cycle of fire narrative as alternative possibilities, it would, in her view, be a strong corrective to the narrative of national loss and ascendance that she believes wrongfully pervades Israeli archeology. But the text offers no evidence that either of these alternate narratives is probable or even plausible. What weight would any scientific study accord to this exchange other than it demonstrates a passion for contested narratives? It certainly offers nothing probative of the existence of any facts different from those now presented at Burnt House. Certainly it would be interesting and important if El-Haj were actually able to demonstrate that the ethos of Israeli nationalism screened out important and contradictory data. But she offers nothing stronger than anecdote to make the case. Given its methodology, Facts on the Ground accords carefully constructed archeological evidence and off-the-cuff anecdote exactly the same weight.
Here are two bizarre "alternative" narratives about the Burnt House in Jerusalem, on a hill [once called the Upper City] overlooking the Temple Mount, now in the Jewish Quarter. The Upper City was the home of prosperous citizens of Jerusalem. Many residents there were priests [kohanim, כוהנים, "Cohens"] who wanted or needed to live close to the Temple. Let's first look at the bizarre claim that "most [ancient?] cities burn every 20 or 25 years." Ancient cities did burn sometimes as modern cities have. Rome burned under Emperor Nero just a few years before Roman forces --including Arab auxiliaries-- set fire to the Jerusalem Temple. But are there other fires registered in historical records that destroyed all of Jerusalem in the Second Temple period?? On the other hand, the fire that devastated Jerusalem when Vespasian & Titus' forces conquered it from Jewish rebels in 70 CE is registered in a book in Greek by Josephus Flavius [The Jewish War, Book VI: 4:5-5:2], a Jew and protege of Vespasian's family, the Flavians, while the same war is described --from an offensively Roman imperialist viewpoint-- by Tacitus, a Roman historian [The Histories, Book V:1-13]. So this "British archeologist" clown is raising the hypothetical possibility of a hitherto unknown fire at a different time in order to discredit the evidence of written history and of artifacts found in place --such as stone utensils and furnishings-- which point to prosperous inhabitants who carefully observed Jewish dietary laws [I have been in the Burnt House]. Among the artifacts found in the Burnt House was a stone weight inscribed in Aramaic in Hebrew letters: דבר קתרוס , meaning " belonging to Bar Kathros" OR "belonging to the son of Kathros". The Kathros family was a prosperous priestly family mentioned in the Talmud. Further, excavators found Roman coins as well as Jewish coins minted by the rebels for the years 67-69 CE, and none later. Thus, the date of the latest coin found helps set the earliest date for the fire.

The next clown believes the fire resulted from a class uprising by laborers forced by King Herod to work on rebuilding the Temple. Again, is there any written evidence in contemporary historical accounts or in inscriptions that mention or indicate such a mutiny of laborers working on the Temple? Nevertheless, we know something about the Temple builders. Herod recruited kohanim to rebuild an enlarged Temple. In other words, the laborers belonged to the priestly class and most likely would have considered it an honor and a holy duty to rebuild, enlarge and embellish the Holy Temple of Jerusalem. Now, the kohanim --who were a large group in the population-- were divided into shifts or watches [mishmarot, משמרות , sometimes translated as the "courses" of the priesthood]. There were 24 of these watches, based on descent/lineage. Each watch was ordinarily called upon to serve in the Temple in rotation for two weeks at a time. Now, the kohanim as builders were most likely subject to the same periods of service as the kohanim doing purely priestly work at the Temple. In such circumstances, they would not feel like prisoners on a chain gang or shanghaied sailors. They would likely feel pride in doing holy work which was reserved for kohanim alone. Besides, there are other problems with the notion of a laborers' mutiny or riot causing the undeniable fire in the Burnt House. Yet Abu el-Haj in her profound ignorance and malice, in order to further her political purposes, takes the very unlikely hypothesis of a laborers' mutiny seriously. And for this, she gets tenure at a university that ought no longer be considered prestigious.

James Russell, Professor of Armenian Studies, Harvard
The Soviet posture strengthened anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist trends in the Western Left. . .
Edward Said's 1978 book Orientalism. . . proposed a vague socialist agenda, a conspiracy theory, and a new set of victims of imperialism quite unlike the Soviets. These were of course the Arabs—and it was even better that the proximal villain was the ever-sinister, colonizing, comprador Jew. But there is a problem. Said dealt with the 18th and 19th centuries, for the most part, but the Arabs were not the political player in the region then: Ottoman Turkey, a powerful empire and seat of the Muslim Caliphate, ruled them. Millions of Christian Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, and Armenians labored under Ottoman misrule too. The first four broke away, but the Armenian homeland was in Anatolia itself. So in 1915, during World War I, the Turks decided upon genocide, and carried it out.
Said did not mention the Armenians even once in his book, for it would have made his passive, victimized Islamic world look rather less passive and not at all the victim. It is a glaring omission. Said's book was properly dismissed by many prominent reviewers as amateurish and dishonest—though on other grounds. They did not even notice the Turkish and Armenian aspect. The book might have been consigned to well-deserved oblivion.
I'm not sure that Russell is right about the effect that exposing Said's failure to take the Armenian genocide into account in his propagandistic Orientalism would have had on the book's reputation. Of course, I agree with Russell that Said's omission is a major sign of his dishonesty.

As to Nadia Abu el-Haj, while she denies or minimizes the long-known history of the Jews in the land that the Romans called Judea, she --on the other hand-- espouses the invented notion of a "palestinian people," a big lie created with the purposes of delegitimizing Israel and --in the long term-- of erasing the memory of Jewish history in Israel and anywhere.

UPDATING ADDITION: That the builders assigned by Herod to rebuild the Temple were kohanim [כוהנים ] is attested by Josephus Flavius [יוסף בן מתתיהו ] in The Antiquities of the Jews [XV: 420][Also see Ehud Netzer, "Herod's Building Projects," in Lee I Levine, The Jerusalem Cathedra, vol I (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi; Detroit: Wayne State University Press 1981)]:
Into none of these courts [of the Temple during reconstruction] did King Herod enter since he was not a priest [kohen, כהן] and was therefore prevented from from doing so. But with the construction of the porticos and the outer courts he did busy himself. . . [Antiquities, XV: 420]
This indicates that the laborers on the Temple rebuilding were not "imported" laborers but kohanim. Before Abu el-Haj undertook to criticize or debunk the generally agreed account of ancient Jerusalem, of Herod's rebuilding and embellishment and enlargement of the Temple, she should have been very familiar with the ancient sources, such as Josephus' account above. That might have saved her from making a fool of herself. On the other hand, maybe the gang of fools, liars, and fanatics that support her don't see her as a fool, since her foolishness or deceit or self-deluded fanaticism --or any combination of these-- fits in well with their own.

Another argument against the two bizarre "alternative" theories is that if the fire had taken place long before the Roman capture in 70 CE, the house would likely have been rebuilt in place as political control and the social order would have remained constant, resuming after the fire. Now, especially if the house had burned down in one of a series of "natural," recurring fires, it is likely that everyone would have had a chance to get away. Yet, the partially calcified skeleton of a young woman was found in the house, indicating that she had not gotten away and the body had not been removed later by survivors, which would likely have occurred in the case of the riot and recurring-fires "alternative" narratives. Nor was the body --in the cellar of a collapsed, burnt house-- removed by Roman soldiers who no doubt removed dead bodies from the city's ruins, but most likely did not bother to exert themselves digging through the ruins looking for bodies that they would not have known were present or not.
Historians hold that the city stayed in its ruined state for 65 years after its destruction in the year 70 CE, with some impoverished Jews living among the ruins. It was rebuilt starting in or shortly after 135 CE by Emperor Hadrian, after he had crushed the Bar Kokhba Revolt. He also renamed the city Aelia Capitolina [Aelius was his clan or gens name] and renamed the Province of Judea [Provincia Iudaea] --Provincia Syria Palaestina. Hadrian's rebuilding was done in a radical, drastic way, although it seems that in various places ruins were not removed but merely built over.

UPDATING OF 12-14-2007 -- additional ancient accounts of the Jewish revolt and its suppression by the Roman Empire
Orosius, VII, 9:5 f.
Sulpicius Severus, II
Dio Cassius [or Cassius Dio], Roman History [Italian edition: Cassio Dione, Storia Romana], LXIII, 22; LXV, 8:1-3, 9:2; LXVI, 1:1-4, 4-7, 9:2, 12:1
Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. II (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences 1980), pp 64-67.
- - - - - - - - - -
Coming: the big lies and pretenses of Annapolis, propaganda, peace follies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, and the Land of Israel, etc.

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Was Karl Marx a Zionist NeoCon? -- Part 2 -- Was Marx the Previous Incarnation of Hugh Fitzgerald?

It is clear that Karl Marx would be considered quite politically incorrect today. He had a low opinion of Islam and Islamic society and of its capacity for civilization. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks early declared their support for the political claims of Muslim peoples and nations against those of non-Muslims, even those of dhimmi peoples who had suffered mass murder at Muslim hands, like the Armenians [see here]. Curiously, the Bolshevik pro-Muslim, pro-Arab policy converged with that of the British Empire --supposed imperialist enemies and betes noires of Communism. This was especially so in the Land of Israel, where the British government was supposed to help Jews return to their ancient homeland and to foster development of the Jewish National Home, designated by the San Remo Conference and the League of Nations.

Here Karl Marx sounds like Hugh Fitzgerald, the learned anti-Islamist of the JihadWatch/DhimmiWatch websites. Even in 1853 there was a pro-Islamist or Turcophile press in Britain, just as today. According to Marx, this Turcophilic press was based on wealthy capitalists, bourgeois, politically Liberal, whose voice was the The Daily News, and who were interested in developing trade with the Ottoman Empire. Sound familiar? How about American business interests and publications that call for a pro-Arab policy against Israel on the grounds of business and trade? Marx first summarizes their argument:
"It is said that Turkey is decaying; but where is the decay? Is not civilization rapidly spreading in Turkey and trade extending? Where you see nothing but decay our statistics prove nothing but progress." [Marx's summary of the Turcophile position]
Here is Marx's response. He first points out that much of the trade with Turkey is in goods that go on from there to other countries, just as Holland imported many goods in transit to Germany:
. . . what every statistician would immediately, in the case of Holland, treat as a clumsy concoction, the whole of the Liberal press of England, including the learned Economist, tries, in the case of Turkey, to impose upon the public credulity. And then, who are the traders in Turkey? Certainly not the Turks. Their way of promoting trade, when they were yet in their original nomadic state, consisted in robbing caravans; and now that they are a little more civilized it consists in all sorts of arbitrary and oppressive exactions. Remove all the Turks out of Europe, and trade will have no reason to suffer. And as to progress in general civilization, who are they that carry out that progress in all parts of European Turkey? Not the Turks, for they are few and far between [in European Turkey], and can hardly be said to be settled anywhere except in Constantinople and two or three small country districts. It is the Greek and Slavonic [Slavic] middle class in all the towns and trading posts who are the real support of whatever civilization is effectually imported into the country. That part of the population is constantly rising in wealth and influence, and the Turks are more and more driven into the background. Were it not for their monopoly of civil and military power they would soon disappear. But that monopoly has become impossible for the future, and their power is turned into impotence except for obstructions in the way of progress. The fact is, they must be got rid of.
Strong words from Marx, a Hugh Fitzgerald avant la lettre. Needless to say, we do not wholly agree with Marx. He does not give credit to the civilizing role of the Jews living in the Balkans. Further, Albania had a Muslim majority already at that time, and Bosnia and Kossovo had large Muslim minorities, perhaps a Muslim majority in Kossovo, maybe. But the more than 150 years that have passed since Marx wrote these lines do show that Islam is an obstacle to civilization. So why do the United States and the United Kingdom [Britain] insist on promoting political Islam in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, for example? Or through the pro-terrorist, pro-barbarian Annapolis Conference?
- - - - - - - - -
Coming: Peace Process frauds and lies, peace follies, peacemongering = warmongering, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, and elsewhere in the Land of Israel, etc.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, November 16, 2007

Was Karl Marx a Zionist NeoCon? A Bat Ye'or or a Robert Spencer ahead of his time?

Karl Marx is supposed to be one of the intellectual founders of Leftism, whatever that means today. Today, of course, the standard "leftist" position is to support Arab and Islamic terrorism --for whatever reason. Nevertheless, Karl Marx took the position that Islamic society was barbarous and an obstacle to civilization. Does that mean that Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, David Bukay, and likeminded others were really Marxists?

Here's what Marx had to say back in 1853 in the American newspaper, the New York Tribune [or Daily Tribune], edited by Horace Greeley, for which Marx was a regular foreign affairs correspondent:
This splended territory [the Balkans] has the misfortune to be inhabited by a conglomerate of different races and nationalities, of which it is hard to say which is the least fit for progress and civilization. . . Slavonians [Slavs], Greeks, Wallachians [Rumanians], Arnauts [Albanians], twelve millions of men, are all held in submission by one million of Turks, and up to a recent period it appeared doubtful whether, of all these different races, the Turks were not the most competent to hold the supremacy which, in such a mixed population, could not but accrue [p 123] to one of these nationalities. But when we see how lamentably have failed all attempts at civilization by Turkish authority --how the fanaticism of Islam, supported principally by the Turkish mob in a few great cities, has availed itself of the assistance of Austria and Russia invariably to regain power and to overturn any progress that might have been made; when we see the central, i.e., Turkish, authority weakened year after year by insurrections in the Christian provinces. . . we shall be obliged to admit that the presence of the Turks in Europe is a real obstacle to the development of the resources of the Thraco-Illyrian [Balkan] Peninsula. [p 124]
We can hardly describe the Turks as the ruling class of Turkey, because the relations of the different classes of society there are as mixed up as those of the various races. The Turk is, according to localities and circumstances, workman, farmer, and small freeholder, trader, feudal landlord in the lowest, most barbaric stage of feudalism, civil officer, or soldier; but in all these different social positions he belongs to the privileged creed and nation -- he alone has the right to carry arms, and the highest Christian has to give up the footpath to the lowest Moslem he meets. . . [p124]
The principal power of the Turkish population in Europe. . . lies in the mob of Constantinople and a few other large towns. It is essentially Turkish, and though it finds its principal livelihood by doing jobs for Christian capitalists, it maintains with great jealousy the imaginary superiority and real impunity for excesses which the privileges of Islam confer upon it as compared with Christians. [p 124]
[the above excerpts are from Marx's article in the New York Tribune, 7 April 1853; the page numbers refer to Paul W Blackstock and Bert F Hoselitz, eds., Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Russian Menace to Europe. . . (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1953)]

It is interesting that Marx admits in so many words the inadequacy of class analysis to describe and analyze Islamic society where dhimmis, non-Muslims, are a large part of the population. Further, Marx's self-styled epigones and disciples in the benighted Twenty-First Century tend to rather admire mobs and barbarism. Mass murder bombings by Islamists are just their cup of tea. But Marx saw Islam as fanatical, an obstacle to progress. And he pointed out the disabilities of non-Muslims --dhimmis-- under Muslim law, while showing how the Muslims could and did abuse the dhimmis. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks started their rule with declaring support for Muslim nationalist movements against those of non-Muslims [see link]. Times change.

- - - - - - - - - -
Coming: The fraud of the Peace Process, the lies underlying the Peace Process, peace follies, propaganda, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, the Land of Israel, etc.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, November 05, 2007

The Islamic law of War and Peace [according to Prof Majid Khadduri]

Where does Islam really stand on the issue of war and peace?

Yoram Ettinger has kindly brought together significant quotes from the book, War and Peace in the Law of Islam, by Prof Majid Khadduri. Khadduri was an Arab nationalist historian who was made a professor at Johns Hopkins University [1949]. This happened long before Edward Said got into American academe. So Khadduri [b. 1909-d. 2007] was a strong voice --and not the only one-- representing Islam and Arab nationalism in the American university, although Said complained in his books that the Western university world was not listening to the poor Arabs and Muslims, nor trying to succor them and their manifold afflictions in their time of difficulty. Khadduri was an admirer of Haj Amin el-Husseini [al-Husayni], Hitler's chief Arab collaborator --a collaborator in the Holocaust too. Emet m'Tsiyon has already posted several items that quote from Khadduri's book, Independent Iraq. These excerpts from Khadduri's book concern the 1933 massacre of Assyrians, the 1941 massacre of Jews [called the Farhud], Amin el-Husseini's connections with the highest echelons of the Iraqi government and his dealings with the British, etc. Khadduri wrote a hagiography of Husseini in his Arab Contemporaries (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ Press 1973). It is noteworthy that he chose to focus on Husseini who had long been relatively inactive politically when Khadduri's book was published [1973], whereas the whole book only offers biog sketches of Husseini and two or three others. Our previous post quoting an old book on Husseini's Holocaust role may help to correct the rosey colored hues of Khadduri's hagiography of this mass murder collaborator.

As indicated, Khadduri had the habit of omitting significant facts that might put the Arabs in a bad light, a habit not so unusual after all among historians, including Arabs, "leftists," and Westerners. But Edward Said wanted to complain that the Arabs were being unfairly and unkindly portrayed. Be that as it may, the fact that Khadduri was inclined to leave out facts and events unfavorable to Arabs [not all such facts, to be sure], gives more credibility to what he says about the Islamic law of war and peace, which does put the Arabs and Muslims in a bad light, at least among reasonable people.

Now, the first edition of Khadduri's book on the Islamic law of war and peace was published in 1940 and the second edition in 1955. So there has been plenty of time for Western diplomats, international relations specialists [like walt & mearsheimer and Condoleezza Rice, etc], politicians, "statesmen," even journalists, to read it and get a realistic view of how Muslims, particularly Arab Muslims, view war. Khadduri points out, as quoted below, that war is the normal state of relations between Muslim states and non-Muslim states. In that case, it is obvious that when Arabs/Muslims believe that they have a geostrategic or other advantage over a non-Muslim adversary, they will exploit that advantage and go to war. Surely they would do it in the case of Jews whom they hate anyhow and have hated for centuries. So if Western policymakers and diplomats really believe that peace is possible between militant Arab nationalists and a weakened Israel, then they are stupid and/or ignorant. On the other hand, maybe they merely pretend that peace is possible in such circumstances. Then they are liars. In either case, Khadduri's authoritative book has been around for a long time.

Here is Ettinger's presentation of Khadduri's conclusions:
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Straight From The Jerusalem Cloakroom #208, Nov. 2, 2007


1. While western democracies consider Peace a permanent and a sublime strategic goal, Islamic law defines peace as a tactic and as the short intervals which are not war.

2. 1,300 years (since the 7th century) of inter-Arab, inter-Muslim and Muslim-Non-Muslim conflicts, wars, terrorism and violation of commitments are lucidly explained by “War And Peace In The Law Of Islam”, authored by the leading global authority on Islamic war & peace making, the late Prof. Majid Khadduri (Johns Hopkins University):

“The Jihad, reflecting the normal war relations between Arabs and non-Muslims…was a product of a warlike people…Islam could not abolish the warlike character of the Arabs who were constantly at war with each other…institutionalizing war as part of the Muslim legal system…transforming war into a holy war, ceaselessly declared against those who failed to become Muslims…The short intervals which are not war, are peace (pp. 53-4).”

“The importance of the Jihad lay in shifting the focus of attention of the tribes from their intertribal warfare to the outside world…The world…was sharply divided in Muslim law into the abode of Islam and the abode of war… The abode of Islam was always, in theory, at war with the abode of war (p. 62, p. 52).”

“Throughout the history of Islam, fighting between Muslim rulers and contending [Muslim domestic] parties was as continuous as between Islam and external enemies…This state of affairs accentuated the struggle for power and created instability and anarchy in the world of Islam (p. 69).”

“The Jihad may be stated as a doctrine of a permanent state of war, not a continuous fighting…The concept of Jihad underwent certain changes. These changes did not imply abandonment of the Jihad duty, it only meant the entry of the obligation into a period of suspension – it assumed a dormant status, from which the [leader] may revive it at any time he deems necessary…No [permanent] compromise is permitted with those who fail to believe in God. They have either to accept Islam or fight (pp. 64-75).”

“If a catastrophe had befallen the Muslims, [they] might come to terms with the enemy… on the grounds of force majeur, provided that the Muslims should resume the Jihad after the expiration of the treaty…Defeated Muslims always maintained that their battle with the enemy would be resumed, however long they had to wait for the second round (pp. 154-6).”

“The Prophet Muhammad has set the classic example by concluding a [628 A.D.] treaty with the Makkans, known as the Hudaybiya Treaty…as a model for subsequent treaties…A peace treaty with the enemy is a valid instrument if it serves Muslim interests…The Prophet and his successors, however, always reserved their right to repudiate any treaty or arrangement which they considered as harmful to Islam…The Hudaybiya Treaty established the precedent that Muslim authorities might come to terms with [the enemy], provided it was only for a temporary period…A temporary peace with the enemy is not inconsistent with Islam’s interests (pp. 203-12).”

“Treaties must be of temporary duration, for in Muslim legal theory the normal relations between Muslim and non-Muslim territories are not peaceful, but warlike…If the [leader] entered a treaty which he was incapable of fulfilling, the treaty was regarded as void (batil). He was permitted to declare its termination…(pp. 220-1).”

3. A WAKE UP CALL BEFORE ANNAPOLIS: The Two State Solution defies Prof. Majid Khadduri’s teachings. It constitutes a phase in the permanent Jihad to eliminate the Jewish State, the outpost of western democracies, the Abode of War. Ignoring Prof. Khadduri’s teachings rewards terrorists and rogue regimes, radicalizes Arab expectations/demands, exacerbates Arab terrorism, fuels an all out war, further destabilizes the Mideast and damages the pursuit of long-term peace, thus undermining vital US national security interests.
- - - - - -End of Ettinger's exposition - - - - - - - - -

Islamic law favors war against non-Muslim enemies --only desisting from war against them [jihad] when the non-Muslim enemy, the Harby, is too strong. Hence, by weakening Israel by giving territory strategically necessary to Israel away to Israel's enemies, the Western powers, especially including the USA, the UK, and Germany, are encouraging the Arabs to make war on Israel, an Israel weakened by territorial loss and partly demoralized for that same reason. Arab states that have been dissuaded from warring on Israel due to its control of strategic, mountainous territory in Judea-Samaria, will have to think again about making war. That is because their religion commands them to make war when they are stronger than the Harby. Consider how Muslims think about peace treaties after reading about the Hudaybiyyah Treaty mentioned above.


Note: if you look at Khadduri's book, Independent Iraq, bear in mind that the first and second editions are not so close. The second edition has some important info about Husseini that is not in the first edition, and the first edition may have some info not found in the second.
- - - - - - -

Coming: peace follies, propaganda, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, Land of Israel, the Annapolis war and genocide conference, etc.

Labels: , ,