The Palestinian – Israel Conflict

It is in the context of early Arab tribalism that the power of Islam should be viewed. Prior to the rise of Islam, Northern Arabian tribes engaged in raiding, feuding and fighting among themselves for livestock, territory, and honour.

Building on the tribal system, Muhammad framed an inclusive structure within which the tribes had a common, God-given identity as Muslims. This imbued the tribes with a common interest and common project. But unification was only possible by extending the basic tribal principle of balanced opposition. This Muhammad did by opposing the Muslim to the infidel, and the dar al-Islam, the land of Islam and peace, to the dar al-harb, the land of the infidels and conflict. He raised balanced opposition to a higher structural level as the new Muslim tribes unified in the face of the infidel enemy. (Salzman , pp137-8) (emphasis added. gma)

The basic tribal framework of “us versus them” remains in Islam. Allegiance is to “my group” which is always defined against “the other.” Islam, according to Salzman is not a constant referent. It only becomes relevant politically when Muslims encounter infidels. Among Muslims, people will mobilise on a sectarian basis, such as Sunni versus Shi‘a. But it would be a mistake to assume that because Arab sectarianism is in conflict, Western European and Israeli interests will remain unaffected. Ultimately Arab segments will unite (even if only temporarily) and mobilise according to whom they find themselves in opposition.

Such opposition may be created in a conflict over material and natural resources (land and water) but fanned by Islamic religious dogma. From its inception, the faith played and still plays an important part in the Arab opposition to Jewish dominance of any sort in the Middle East.

Thus, it is against a background of an Arab tribal culture upon which Qur’anic doctrines have been superimposed that Palestinian conflict with the Jewish State of Israel must be viewed.

The Qur’an, as elaborated in Muslim exegetic literature, including the hadith and commentaries, extensively depicts Jews in extremely negative terms. In the Islamic world view, as the price for their obduracy in rejecting the message of Mohammed and committing other transgressions against Allah’s will, Jews are cursed and are to be subjected to every possible human indignity.

The Qur’anic curse on the Jews appears in Sura 2 verse 61. There it recounts the biblical episode given in Exodus concerning the Israelites’ complaints directed at Moses for the monotonous diet they received while in the desert instead of the fresh fruit and vegetables they enjoyed in Egypt before being liberated. Moses rebukes the Israelites and after asking them rhetorically, whether if by going back to Egypt where they could find all they had been asking for, they would prefer to exchange that which is good for that which is worse, the Qu’ran continues:

“Shame and misery were stamped upon them [the Israelites] and they incurred the wrath of Allah; because they disbelieved Allah’s signs and slew the Prophets unjustly; because they were rebels and transgressors”  (N.J. Dawood, Quoran, Penguin Books, 1998)

The Qu’ran goes further and directs that Jews are to be viewed as the devil’s minions and on the Day of Judgment are to burn in hellfire (Qur’an 4:55; 4:60)

The Unbelievers among the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] and the Pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures (Qur’an 98:7)

Recent research by Andrew Bostom on the Qu’ran’s attitude towards Jews and its historical application discloses four central themes:

• Jews are cursed by God,(Qu’ran 2.61) associated with Satan and consigned to Hell (Qur’an 4:60; 4:55;58:14-19;98:6);
• Unless they converted to Islam, Christians and Jews especially, are subject to the compulsory payment of the Qur’anic poll tax (jizya) which had to be made “readily.” (Qur’an, 2:61, 3:112 and 9:29);
• the Jews are cursed for killing the Prophets [Jesus and Mohammed] (Qu’ran 5:78) and being “laden with God’s anger” thus merit punishment at the hands of Islam by suffering permanent “abasement and humiliation”; (Qur’an 2:61; 3:112); and
• transformation of  the Jews into apes and swine as part of that punishment.(Qu’ran 2:65;5:60;5:78;7:116)

(Andrew G. Bostom, Antisemitism in the Qur’an: Motifs and Historical Manifestations, http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020584.php ;Textbook Islamic Antisemitism http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/textbook_islamic_antisemitism.html -hereinafter “Bostom”)

Consistent with the Qu’ranic commandments to humiliate non-believers,
orthodox and fundamentalist Muslim clerics and their adherents categorise Jews and Christians as “dhimmi”s (“protected”). During the early period of Arab expansion, conquered infidel people were compelled either to convert to Islam or suffer death. Jews and Christians, however, being “People of The Book” were not viewed as infidels and were permitted to continue to practise Judaism or Christianity, provided that they paid the jizya poll tax and acknowledged the supremacy of Islam.

While both Jews and Christians are classed as dhimmis, whose social status far inferior to that of even the lowliest Muslim, the Qur’anic attitude towards Christians was more favourable that expressed of the Jew:

“Thou will surely find the most hostile of men to the believers [Muslims], are the Jews and the idolators; and thou will surely find the nearest of them in love to the believers are those who say ‘We are Christians’; that, because some of them are priests and monks and they wax not proud”  (Qur’an 5:82)

The more benevolent Muslim attitude towards Christians is rooted in two factors: (a) Jewish antipathy towards Moslems in the early stage of Islam’s development and (b) Jewish attitudes against miscegenation.

According to al Jahiz, a mid 19^th century Islamic commentator:

The first Islamic emigrants exiled from Mecca resettled in Medina where they encountered the local Jewish tribes who, it is alleged, envied the Muslims and the blessings of their new faith. The Jews initially tried to lead them astray with misleading speech. When this failed they, the Jews plunged into an open declaration of enmity so that the Muslims mobilised their forces, exerting themselves morally and materially to banish the Jews and destroy them…The Christians, however, because of their remoteness from Mecca and Medina did not have to put up with religious controversies…and be involved in war. That was the first cause of our dislike of the Jews, and our partiality towards the Christians.” (cited in Bostom)

Muslim observations of the low status of Jewish occupations led them to conclude that the Jewish religion must therefore be similarly unfavourable. What is even more objectionable from al Jahi’z perspective, is the low incidence of Jewish intermarriage with other races which has resulted in lower intellectual and physical qualities amongst Jews than in other races.

[T]hat their unbelief must be the foulest of all, since they are the filthiest if nations. Why the Christians, ugly as they are, are physically less repulsive than the Jews, may be explained by the fact that the Jews, by not intermarrying, have intensified the offensiveness of their features. Exotic elements have not mingled with them; neither have males of alien races had intercourse with their women, nor have their men cohabitated with females of foreign stock. The Jewish race therefore has been denied high mental qualities sound physique and superior lactation. The same regulars obtain when horses, camels donkeys and pigeons are inbred mingled with them.” (cited in Bostom)

Dhimmititude brought with it many civil indignities disabilities in the Islamic world which was enforced with varying degrees of intensity over the centuries. In most Islamic Arab lands, Jews were ritually and systematically humiliated in fulfilling their obligation to pay the poll tax. After making the payment publicly in the town square to the tax collection authority in a subservient manner, the Jew was slapped in the face or beaten on the neck and pushed forward to demonstrate that he was being spared the sword. The public abasement was more important than the sum paid.

The need for Jewish services – especially financial – by local Arab dignitaries was reflected in the indignity which they inflicted on their Jewish inferiors. Although in a number of cases, Jews rose to positions of importance, such as vizier to the Mongol ruler in Badhdad during the 13^th century and the Jewish vizier in Fez, Morocco in 1464, Jews often acted as imperial tax collectors and as such became a bulwark between the government on the one hand and the Arab masses on the other, from whom it distanced itself. When anti-government riots occurred, as they did in the streets of Fez in 1465, the mobs rage was directed not at the political leadership or Jewish intermediaries alone, but a pogrom was instigated against all the Jews in the city and its environs.

In addition to the special poll tax, dhimmis were required to wear distinctive clothing showing their lowered status; they were not permitted to hold any governmental office of honour; their religious buildings had to be lower than those of Islam and their religious devotions were not permitted to be heard in public. Muslims took precedence to Jews while walking in public streets. In riding, Jews were restricted to the use of donkeys rather than horses as a sign of their lowered status. Thus the possibility of Jewish dominance arising – in even a smallest part of Islamic territory “dar Islam” – was and still is anathema to a Muslim fundamentalist. (See: Bat Ye’or The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam, Associated University Press, Cranbury, NJ, 1985; Islam and Dhimmitude: Where civilisations Collide Associated University Press, Cranbury NJ, 2002 )

In Morocco for example, even in the second decade of the 20^th century, Jews upon entering the palace at dar el Maghzen on business, whether on behalf of the Jewish community or otherwise privately, were compelled, upon entering, to remove their shoes and walk barefoot in the Palace and its courtyard until they exited. Only when Morocco became a French Protectorate in 1922 was this humiliation removed.

For all Muslims, not just the extremist fundamentalists, the Qu’ran remains the infallible word of God, valid for all time and all places. Its ideals are absolutely true and beyond criticism. Thus, contemporary Qu’ranic commentators, such as Mawdudi, assert that the Jews and Christians have corrupted their faith since they have distorted certain basic components of Islam.

The purpose for which Muslims are required to fight is not to compel unbelievers to embrace Islam, but to put an end to the sovereignty and supremacy of the unbelievers so that the latter are unable to rule over men. The authority to rule should only be vested in those who follow the true faith; unbelievers who do not follow this true faith should live in a state of subordination (cited in Bostom)

Were the above views to be considered those of a relatively few extremists, the Middle East conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbours might be capable of resolution by mutual accommodation. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case. In fact since the establishment of Israel, and particularly following the 1967 Six Day War, Arab anti-Jewish sentiments have become more vocally strident and vicious. The Friday morning sermons emanating from Saudi Arabian and Islamic centres indicate that the above motifs remain vibrant in popular Islamic religious teaching.

As will be demonstrated later, American and European political leadership assumes that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be resolved by Israel ceding to the Palestinians control of all the Palestinian land captured by Israel in the 1967 Six Days War and the removal of Israeli settlement from such territory – in exchange for peace. This assumption, judging by the political results of the 2006 Palestinian elections, is ill founded. The votes demonstrated a strong Palestinian commitment to and support for the fundamentalist and religiously motivated Hamas’ party, whose declared objective is the disestablishment of the Jewish state of Israel.

With this mindset there is little likelihood of any voluntary and peaceful resolution of the Middle East conflict in the foreseeable future in the absence an Islamic reformation, or the occurrence of some other extremely improbable event having global ramifications. (Nassim Niccholas Taleb, The Black Swan, Penguin Books, London 2008). . “Conflict management” rather than “conflict resolution” must be the near and medium term goal in the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation

This demands that Israeli and Western leaders recognise and take into account in their decision-making a number of social, political and cultural factors inherent in Arab society as differing significantly from their own. In those regional and global political arenas where there appears to be a religious and moral vacuum (and a continuing need for oil at almost any price), the expansion of Islamic values and ideology is already becoming increasingly prevalent. These may become dominant in the not too distant future such that Arab dreams, wishes, thoughts and speech will bear directly upon their political actions and become a major part of the reality in Arab decision-making. (Haviv Rettig, Report on Muslim anti-Semitism, Jerusalem Post, April 23, 2008; Nassim Nicholas Taleb The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, Penguin Books, London, 2007; Fouad Ajami, The Dream Palace of the Arabs, Vintage Books, New York, 1999; Andrew Hammond, Islamic Caliphate a Dream, Not Reality, Reuters, December 13, 2006 http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L04275477.htm)

The fundamental structural elements of the Arab perception of its case encompass the following assertions to which a brief response is given and expanded later:

• “Palestine was and is a country which the Arabs have occupied for more than a thousand years, and any Jewish historical claims to the land are rejected.”
  • Response:
    • Jews, too, have maintained an unbroken contact with Palestine since their involuntary dispersion 2000 years ago by the Romans and have never severed their connection with it.
    • There is no justification for rejecting a historical claim if that claim has been maintained uninterruptedly since the dispersion.
      
• “The British Government, in issuing the Balfour Declaration   (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/balfour.htm ) was disposing of something that did not belong to it.”
  • Response:
    • The text of the Balfour Declaration and its issuance received prior approval of the American and French governments
    • Contemporaneously with the issuance of the Declaration in 1918, Britain had conquered Palestine and in accordance with the laws of war pertaining at the time, she would have been entitled to protect her interests there. Were it not for American involvement, she would have utilised the territory for her own uses. In the absence of outside investment she would have been left in deficit to manage an under-populated territory incapable of being financially and economically independent – as Palestine was under Ottoman rule. In the circumstances and with the agreement of the Allied powers she legitimately promoted demographic and capital inflows while protecting the civil rights if the existing inhabitants.
      
• “The Mandate was in conflict with the Covenant of the League of Nations from which it derived its authority.” (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm).
  
  • Response:
    • Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant recognises that some territories were almost ready to stand alone, while others needed further “tutelage.”
    • Sub article 1 relates to those territories which are inhabited “by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world.” The Syrian and Iraqi (Mesopotamia) mandates fell under this head.
    • In contrast, subarticle 4 refers “certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized. The Palestine mandate
      falls under this provision.
      
• “The part played by the British in freeing the Arabs from Turkish rule after World War I did not empower Great Britain, France or the other Allied Powers to dispose of “their” country.”
  • Response:
    • Rather than constituting a pre-existing aspiration, Arab independence was in fact a new vision following the Ottoman defeat – a by-product emerging from the deliberations and fiats of the victors. In the process of securing her interests Britain permitted and even encouraged Arab self-determination but only in those areas where British interests were not compromised
    • Britain’s intention in going to war with Germany and her ally Turkey did not specifically encompass freeing the Hashemites or any other Arab tribe from Ottoman rule.
    • In any case Britain did not agree to recognise Hashemite interests extending into Palestine and Hussein, Hussein, King of Hajaz at the time, deferred his claim to Palestine until the conclusion of WW I.
• “Turkish rule was preferable to that of the British rule, if the latter involved their eventual subjection to the Jews.”
  • Response:
    • Arab preference for Islamic rule over that exercised by a dhimmi people (see later for extended discussion) presupposes that Islamic hegemony is justifiable.
    • Past experience has shown that Jewish and Christian inhabitants in Arab lands under Muslim rule have not been treated as equals in the exercise of their civil and religious rights and their holy places have been desecrated.
    • In contrast, the Jewish State of Israel permits freedom of worship and respects almost all sites claimed by Islam and other beliefs as Holy Places
• “The Mandate was and is a violation of the Arab right of self-determination since it forced upon the Arab population within its own territory an immigrant non-Islamic and foreign people whom they did not desire and would not tolerate. In short they regarded the Mandate as a Jewish invasion of Palestine.”
  • Response:
    • The Arab position presuppose that no other peoples in the Middle East have a right of self-determination
    • Jews living in Arab lands also have an equal right of self-determination which the Arab majority in the Middle East unjustifiably refuses to recognise.
    • The Husseini Arab leadership’s hatred of Jews generally, and as foreign interlopers to Palestine particularly, is racially prejudicial and is unsupportable in international law.
• Palestinians assert that the promises made to the Arabs by Great Britain in 1915 in the Hussein-McMahon correspondence, and the later assurances given to Arab leaders by Presidents Roosevelt and Truman concerning Palestine, had been understood as recognition of the principle that Palestinian Arabs should enjoy the same rights as those enjoyed by the populations of the neighbouring Arab states. Thus the emergent opposition to the idea of a Jewish National Home predated the issue of the Mandate in 1922 and again before the 1942 Biltmore Program expressed its support for a Jewish State. (See Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry, Chapter VI, paras. 2 and 3 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/anglo/angch06.htm)
  • Response
    • Refutation of this argument is presented at length in Chapter II.
    • Suffice it to say here that the conclusions drawn from the Hussein-McMahon correspondence by the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular do not coincide with the evidence. (see Isaiah Friedman, Palestine: A Twice Promised Land The: British, The Arabs and Zionism 1915-1920, Transaction Publishers, Edison, NJ 08837,  2000)
      
• Since by 1947 all the surrounding Arab States had been granted independence, Palestinian Arabs argue that they were just as advanced politically as were the citizens of the nearby States, and the suggestion that self-government should be withheld from Palestine until the Jews had acquired a majority was outrageous
  • Response:
    • Arab political advancement is inconsistent with the evidence on the ground:
    • Government is tribally autocratic not democratic (see later).
    • Self-government remains government by elites and is unaccountable to the general population.
    • Sexual equality remains undeveloped and the exercise of other internationally acknowledged human rights is suppressed.
    • The Jewish majority in the State of Israel recognises, as a matter of principle, the equality of the Arab population. That it is not always implemented in practise, is to be regretted.
    • Immediately following Israel’s declaration of Independence in 1948 five Arab armies invaded the territory lying to west of the Jordan River. Israel, acting in self defence, succeeded in retaining the area designating by the United Nations as the territory of the Jewish State, but also encroached on some of the territory designated for the Palestinian Arab state. The balance became occupied mainly by Jordan, and small areas by Egypt and Syria.
      
• After 1948, but before 1967, the Palestinians added one further claim in addition to those mentioned above. Those Palestinians who had fled, been driven out, or otherwise dispossessed of their lands located in what subsequently became the State of Israel as a result of the War of Independence (Israeli nomenclature) or “al-Nakba“, the “catastrophe” (Palestinian Arab nomenclature) have the “right of return” to their original homes.
  • Response:
    • The United Nations Security Council Resolution 194 does not support a right of return as the exclusive remedy available to Palestinian refugees. Compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement are alternative possibilities
    • The Resolution refers to refugees who wish live at peace with their neighbours. The desire for peaceful co-existence has not been manifested in practice by the refugees or their leadership.
• Following the Six Day War in 1967, the Palestinians assert further that the following Israeli acts are illegal and contrary to international law:
• the military occupation by the Israel Defence Forces of  the previously held Palestinian – Jordanian land;
• the taking of that land by Jewish settlers; and
• the annexation of East Jerusalem (and the Golan Heights) by the State of Israel.
  

Israel rejects the assertion of illegality in her above actions and the detailed response to these claims forms the major part of this book