The myth of Arab innocence throughout history --particularly concerning Jews-- has long haunted British and American writing about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Professors Walt and Mearsheimer put it as follows in their anti-Israel tract:
...in the Christian West... Jews suffered greatly from the despicable legacy of Anti-Semitism... But ... the creation of Israel involved additional crimes against a largely innocent third party: the Palestinians.
This article seeks to disprove that false claim and demonstrate instead the systemic, juridical oppression, exploitation, and humiliation of non-Muslims --including Jews--in Islamic society. Further, whereas it used to be commonly believed that Islam was benign toward Jews, the article shows that Jews were at the bottom of the social barrel in the Islamic domain generally--although conditions varied with time and place. Moreover, this was true in Jerusalem specifically. Indeed, the famous Jewish philosopher Maimonides believed that Jews were worse treated under Islam than in Christendom. He was in a position to compare conditions in both zones because he conducted correspondence with Jews in far flung places.
In the empires resulting from the Arab and Muslim conquests, Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians--and later, Hindus and others-- were subjects far inferior in law to Muslims as a class. Tolerated non-Muslims, called dhimmis, were required to pay annual tribute, jizya, for the privilege of living another year. This is grounded in Qur'an 9:29 and remains part of Islamic law to this day, although formally abolished in the Ottoman Empire in 1855. Islamic law still views dhimmis as an occupied population to be "brought low" (9:29 & 2:61). The rules of dhimmi status, dhimma, also provide that dhimmis should not bear arms, that their garments must differ from Muslim garments, that they show deference to Muslims, such as dismounting when encountering a Muslim on the road. Since a horse is a noble animal, a dhimmi must not ride one. Further, a dhimmi's testimony in court is worth half of a Muslim's, etc.
The Danish traveler, Karsten Niebuhr, visiting Egypt in 1761-1762, described dhimmis dismounting in humiliation from donkeys when encountering horse-mounted Muslims on the street. Niebuhr visited Egypt four decades before Napoleon, which is significant because Edward Said argued that similar reports made after Napoleon's Egyptian expedition were invalid since tainted with imperialism.
Moshe Gil found in the Cairo Genizah, a medieval archive of Jewish writings, accounts of impoverishment and suffering caused to Jews in Israel by collection of the jizya and other taxes:
...if you saw who paid all those moneys you would have been astonished and lamented over them and say of them: Could such a large `onesh [=punitive tax, exaction] have come from those poor people?
Jacob Barna'i examined ledgers of the Jerusalem Jewish community in the late eighteenth century. He found a situation strikingly similar to that found by Gil for the pre-Crusades period. Besides jizya, Jews paid unofficial taxes, fees, exactions, mandatory bribes, etc. The rapacious were not only Ottoman officials but local Muslim notables and strong men. Of course, Christian dhimmis too could be oppressed this way. Jews differed by being low man on the Islamic totem pole. Israeli historian Moshe Sharon argues:
...the fact that the Qur'an singled them [Jews] out as the enemies of the Muslims... institutionalized their inferior status in comparison to the Christians.
The Arab writer Al-Jahiz explained this by the political resistance of the Jews in Medina to Muhammad. The Hamas takes inspiration for its Judeophobia from early Islam, citing the hadith fable about Judgment Day in its charter (Article 7):
...the Muslims will fight the Jews who will hide behind rocks and trees. The rocks and trees will cry out: O Muslim! A Jew is hiding behind me. Come kill him...
Francesco Gabrieli, the Italian historian of Islam, wrote:
...the name "Yahudi" [=Jew] acquired on Muslim lips the same odor of hostile scorn for the Jews that the term "Jew" had in the Western world, more hostile and scornful than that of the epithet "Nasrani" [=Christian].
This judgment is supported by a British envoy sent to the Levant in the 1830s. John Bowring reported Muslim resentment of improved treatment for dhimmis there by their ruler Muhammad Ali of Egypt:
The Mussulmans deeply deplore the loss of that sort of superiority which they all & individually exercised over ... the other sects... a Mussulman... believes ... that a Christian --and still more a Jew-- is an inferior being to himself.
This pecking order was confirmed by a nineteenth century Turk objecting to equalizing measures in the Ottoman Empire (quoted by Bernard Lewis):
... whereas in former times... the communities were ranked... the Muslims first, then the Greeks, then the Armenians, then the Jews, now all... were... on the same level. Some Greeks objected... saying: "The government has put us together with the Jews. We were content with the supremacy of Islam."
The above quotes demonstrate that the Jews were generally at the bottom of Arab-Muslim society. It thus stands to reason that this was true of Jerusalem too. Yet this should and can be demonstrated by sources.
In the late Mamluk period (ca. 1500), the chief Roman Catholic official in Jerusalem, Francesco Suriano, hated Muslims, but appreciated how they treated Jews:
I wish you to know how these dogs of Jews are trampled upon, beaten, and ill-treated, as they deserve... They live in this country in such subjection that words cannot describe it... in Jerusalem where they committed the sin for which they are dispersed throughout the world [the crucifixion-EAG], they are by God more punished and afflicted than in any other part of the world. And over a long time I have witnessed that.
Some 300 years later, in Ottoman Jerusalem, the French writer Chateaubriand found the Jews still on the bottom. A Greek monk, Neophytos, described the situation until the 1830s. Illustrating Muhammad Ali of Egypt's magnanimity toward dhimmis, he writes that it extended even to Jews. They formerly "did not even dare to change a tile on" their synagogue roof, yet "now received a permit to build."
Next comes a surprise witness, none other than Karl Marx:
Nothing equals the misery and suffering of the Jews at Jerusalem... the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance, insulted by the Greeks, persecuted by the Latins." [New York Tribune, 15 April 1854]
To be sure, Marx was never in Jerusalem. But his report in Horace Greeley's Tribune is mainly taken from a book by the French diplomat and historian, Cesar Famin, who served in the Ottoman Empire and had access to French diplomats, churchmen, and foreign ministry records.
If these accounts seem tedious, let’s skip over the late Ottoman period, when conditions for dhimmis generally improved, to British rule when Arab pogroms against Jews resumed, with British acquiescence or encouragement. The 1929 massacre and "ethnic cleansing" of the ancient Hebron community (68 Jews murdered, hundreds removed) left special bitterness among Jews in Israel and abroad.
This was followed by participation of the chief Palestinian Arab leader, the British-appointed mufti of Jerusalem, Amin el-Husseini, in the Holocaust from his base in Berlin. To be sure, the Allies did not prosecute him at Nuremberg for genocide collaboration, although Yugoslavia wanted him tried for war crimes by his followers there.
The Walt-Mearsheimer view of Arabs generally and Palestinian Arabs specifically as "largely innocent" is blatantly false. Further, there is no longer an excuse for ignorance on the matters covered above. There are document collections covering Jews under Islam by Norman Stillman, Bat Ye'or, and Andrew Bostom, plus abundant books and articles. Moreover, there are works on Arab nationalist Nazi collaboration, Husseini's particularly, by Hirszowicz, Schechtman, Carpi, El-Peleg, etc. Yet the myth seems so deeply rooted among the press, academics, and State Department circles, that it is unlikely to dissipate any time soon if ever.
Straw man
The argument is that Europe's record is worse.
The myth (newly invented), is that there's a myth of Arab innocence.
The Decline of Historical "scholarship"!
Innocent or guilty of what specific crime or misdemeanor he does not specify; presumably they would be , according to W&M, "innocent" of the "crime" of "anti-Semitism" and equally "guilty" according to him!
In the absolute no human community is "innocent" of that "crime"; anti Semitism has been a long lasting, universal phenomena substantially encompassing all "gentile", goy=non Jewish, human kind!
A state of affairs and historical fact that pits the Jews against, practically, all of humankind that deserves further exploration to find out who was in the right and who deserved, earned, that long lasting antipathy often verging on outright hostility and why.
(Reading Israel Shahak might shed some light on the issue.)
However it is NOT a question of who was right and how was wrong it is a question of historical fact and the real issue, in this context of a universal phenomena, is: who was more vehement in his enmity and who dealt the Jews the worst deal through out history?
I contend that Jews were better treated, or less evilly dealt with, by the Arabs and Islam than any other major human community in which Jews had a perceptible presence !
Mr Green had many episodes and quotations about Arab/Moslem ill treatment of Jews to support his thesis.
I contend that as much and much more evil could be unearthed if his objective was any other major human community.
Should that be Christendom all we have to do is recollect the Inquisition and the Holocaust the parallel ,or quasi equivalent, of which never occurred in Islamdom.
Re the Jizya, the tax imposed on non Moslems in Moslem states, the pertinent historical facts, studiously avoided by Mr Green, about it are:
1-It was first imposed on non Moslems at the request of the Archbishop of Jerusalem Safronius to serve as a substitute, en lieu of, to serving in the (Moslem ) army of the state that came to dominate Palestine in the sixth century AD.
Payment in lieu of military service is neither unique nor necessarily evil.
If anything at all it could be reasonably interpreted as a progressive move: to legally allow non Moslems NOT to fight for another cause/doctrine than their own.
In essence it is a reflection of Islam's respect of their, the dhimmis', beliefs, doctrines and the dictates of their own conscience and a humane measure to enable non Moslems to legally avoid serving in an army upholding the values of an other religion than their own
2-NON Moslems were EXCEMPTED from paying the taxes imposed on Moslems such as the Zakat and the Ushor.
To prop his thesis Mr Green quoted only one instance, subject to various interpretations, from the Koran; which same book classified both Jews and Christians as "people of the Book" and mandated the privileged treatment of their communities, houses of worship etc due to their monotheism .
As to the many other episodes and quotations, particularly re aspects of ill treatment of dhimmis, such as garment and horse riding vignettes, Mr Green failed to :
1-Find any support for that in the Koran; because there is NONE
AND
2-Failed to mention a paramount historical fact that those discriminatory measures were enacted in the era of Islamic decline, "asser al inhitat", during which Moslems also suffered from equally bizarre and inane regulations.
As a historian Mr Green failed two imperative tests of serious, objective historical scholarship by failing to consider:
1-The universal TIME context of such measures .
The crucial importance of which can be deduced from , say, "Appraising” England by noting SOLELY that rapists were imprisoned while at the same time pick pockets were executed at one certain era in English history
2-The universality of the phenomenon of Jewish antipathy throughout AD history which lends itself to various interpretations.
Re: Straw man
You write: "The myth (newly invented), is that there's a myth of Arab innocence."
If I understand you correctly, you are factually mistaken. In fact, the view that Arabs were wholly innocent of what occurred before Israel's creation is common and, as noted in the article, untrue. The view of innocent Arabs on which Jews were dumped is argued ad nauseum in, among other places, British newspapers - including by respected columnists/commentators - to this time. Must I provide you with a list of such articles? In any event, John Mearsheimer himself argues for Arab innocence in an article - which, it seems to me, does him no credit and shows his reliance on highly questionable sources - re-printed in HNN:
Fifth, he [Benny Morris] clearly implies that the expulsion was the Arab's own fault. He writes: "The Arabs, it was said, had only themselves to blame for the upheaval: they’d started it. And, Morris notes, the Jews were only emulating the Arabs, who’d always envisioned a virtually Judenrein Palestine." This is an outrageous argument. The Zionist came to Palestine knowing full well that there were an indigenous people there and that they would have to steal their land. Margolick, to his credit, quotes Ben-Gurion saying that the Zionists stole their land. Of course, the Palestinians resisted the Jews. Who could blame them? Again, Ben-Gurion is worth quoting: “Were I an Arab, I would rebel even more vigorously, bitterly, and desperately against the immigration that will one day turn Palestine and all its Arab residents over to Jewish rule."
The Palestinians certainly did not start this conflict. They were simply reacting to an attempt by the Zionists to take away their homes and land, which they eventually did. Furthermore, to talk about a "Judenrein Palestine" is a subtle way of implying that the Palestinians were Nazis, which they were not. It is also worth noting that there were Jews living peacefully in the area we call Palestine before the Zionists began moving there from Europe. Moreover, there was little resistance to the first Jews who came to Palestine in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The resistance appeared when the Arab population came to understand the Zionists' agenda.
Which is to say, Mearsheimer sees the Arabs as pretty much wholly innocent. The facts, as history knows them, are otherwise. Which is to say, most - perhaps, 99% - Jews who came to historic Palestine knew little about the region. They little knew little about the history of the Arabs. They knew little about Islam or its history. Further, they did not come to steal the land. Land was purchased and purchased at above the going market rate - which is quite a bit different from stealing.
Those Jews who, in fact, knew something about the region sought, as even the right winger Jabotinsky advocated, joint rule with Arabs. Moreover, there was support for their position on the Arab side, with quite a number of Arab leaders believing that the region would benefit from the presence of Jews.
Which is to say, it was a conscious political decision made by the Arab side to oppose the presence of Jews - which was the view that became dominant. Such will become clear to anyone who examines the facts presented in Hillel Cohen's interesting but, in my view, slightly flawed, book, Army of Shadows. Mearsheimer confuses a political decision with a necessary position. But, as we all know from studying just war, moral aims are those directed to what is necessary to lead a decent life, not to keep others from migrating or playing a role in government.
The errors in the quote material are many - so many that I thought not to reproduce it. They include allegations about the absence of violence against newcomers in the 19th Century - untrue, by the way -, to just about everything else. Be that as it may, I have shown your thesis to be wrong.
Somewhat less emphasized by Mr. Green - and also contradicting Mearsheimer -, is the fact that there was a rather clear alliance between the Arab national movement in Palestine, via the Grand Mufti, and the Nazis to solve the so-called Jewish problem more generally, and not just in historic Palestine. In this regard, I would point you to the scholarship of Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers. The short version of their important scholarship can be found in this article. They are, more importantly, the authors of Halbmond und Hakenkreuz. Das "Dritte Reich", die Araber und Palästina. The two authors have written a detailed book on the subject, Halbmond und Hakenkreuz. Das "Dritte Reich", die Araber und Palästina ("Crescent Moon and Swastika: The Third Reich, the Arabs, and Palestine"). This was also raised by Bernard-Henri Lévy in his new book Left in Dark Times: A Stand Against the New Barbarism,page 176, (and reference to the two researchers is a reference to Mallmann and Cüppers):
Reading the writings of the Mufti, one can no longer say that the Holocaust was a European crime of which the Arabs are innocent. One can no longer say that the Arab world is paying for a crime it had nothing to do with when we discover, in the archives of the high commander of the German army, that "only the funds placed at the disposition of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem by Germany" allowed him to organize his little Kristallnacht in Palestine. And one can no longer make this claim or sustain this argument when one has read the book by two renowned researchers that just came out in Germany establishing, after many years of inquiry, especially in the military archives of Freiburg, two absolutely decisive facts. First, that Arab anti-Semitism was not, as is always said, a circumstantial anti-Semitism, mainly linked to English support for the nascent Israeli state, which the Arabs therefore saw as a colonial creation: Germany, says the Grand Mufti in a statement the authors discovered, is "the only country in the world that has not merely fought the Jews at home but have declared war on the entirety of world Jewry; in this war against world Jewry, the Arabs feel profoundly connected to Germany"–one could hardly put it better! And second, that there was, stationed in Athens, under the orders of the Obersturmbannführer Walter Rauff, the very same man who refined and then developed the use of gas trucks at Auschwitz, a special intervention force, the Einsatzgruppe Ägypten, intended to reach Palestine and liquidate the 500,000 European Jews who had already taken refuge in the Yishuv in the event Rommel won the battle of the desert: this was an Arab unit, and it was al-Husseini who, there again, in his conversations with Eichmann, had put the final touches on the intervention plan, which should indicate his full and entire participation in the Final Solution; and only Montgomery's victory at El Alamein stymied the project for extermination.
Regarding Muslim attitudes toward Jews more generally, I would commend you to read not only Professor Lewis' book, The Jews of Islam, (which offers a somewhat kinder assessment than Mr. Greene does) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, by Andrew Bostom (which offers voluminous evidence from Islamic religious sources including the Qur'an, various Hadiths - which are reproduced in full, along with commentary on them by leading Muslim theologians over the millennium -, Muslims theologians generally (both from the classical period and up to today), political leaders across the Muslim regions (again, across the span of time), etc. showing the role religion played in fomenting hatred and, while this was not Bostom's theme, the attitude of contempt toward Jews which Professor Lewis describes as being typical in Muslim regions).
The point here is that it is, in analyzing what occurs in the world, important not to forget that non-Europeans have their own hatreds, their own agendas, their own history. It is not just a reflection of our history. Rather, Jews were thought of contemptuously by Palestine's Arab population and attitudes by Muslims, based on religion, did play an important role in making the dispute what it is. This is acknowledged by historians including even Benny Morris.
History vs. Myth
Omar may remember, for instance, being brought up short in his discussion of the wonderful tolerance of the Ottoman Sultans when he was reminded of the tens of thousands of Christian children kidnapped and forcibly converted by the Sultan's government to Islam (i.e., the Janissaries).
Meanwhile, observe the illogic of what he says now:
"Mr Green had many episodes and quotations about Arab/Moslem ill treatment of Jews to support his thesis.
I contend that as much and much more evil could be unearthed if his objective was any other major human community."
The issue, Omar, is not how badly OTHER groups did or did not treat Jews. That is irrelevant to the question about Muslim behavior-- where the subject (to repeat) is the myth of Muslim innocence. I repeat: this is a myth which Omar himself has ahistorically purveyed until caught by the facts. So to be clear: the issue is whether the Muslims were innocent or not of ill-treating Jews (and Christians). The answer, as Omar himself admit, is that very often they were not at all innocent.
Okay, then. On Omar's own admission, case closed.
(And Omar should stop bringing up the miserable Israel Shahak, a source which he scrounged from his surfing of anti-semitic websites. N. Friedman and I have demonstrated time and again that Shahak is very inaccurate, undependable and highly distortive. But Omar never learns because he so desperately wants to beleive that the statements of Shahak are true.)
Oh, well. Maybe it was Mossad who did Mumbai, too, eh, Omar? One must ask, in the face of 180 innocent dead, what other religion produces fanatics who send fiends like this out to kill hundreds and hundreds of innocents in the name of God, Omar?
Islam isn't all violence. But it is a version of Islam which has produced THIS. And meanwhile, to quote Khaled al-Jenfawi, in Kuwait's al-Seyassah daily: "Unfortunately, we have yet to see a distinguished popular condemnation [of the Mumbai atrocities] in the traditional Arab or Muslim communities that strongly rejects what is happening in the name of Islam."
That's not me speaking, Omar.
Re: History vs. Myth
"In the absolute no human community is "innocent" of that "crime"; anti Semitism has been a long lasting, universal phenomena substantially encompassing all "gentile", goy=non Jewish, human kind!
A state of affairs and historical fact that pits the Jews against, practically, all of humankind"
The real issue is therefore twofold:
1-Given that it is a universal phenomenon the ranking of the extent of its spread and persavisness is objectively pertinent.
And that:
2-"(It)deserves further exploration to find out who was in the right and who deserved, earned, that long lasting antipathy often verging on outright hostility and why."
However that:
"(Reading Israel Shahak might shed some light on the issue.)" Instead of urging “Professor” Eckstein to weigh in by providing an interpretation of that sad but undeniable universal phenomenon provokes his ire is also interesting and telling.
His priority here is to dissuade and deter people from perusing a land mark oeuvre by a Jewish scholar of outstanding erudition, exceptional honesty, objectivity and courage: the late Israel Shahak’s
"Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years”.
(http://www.geocities.com/israel_shahak/book1.htm ) and (http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/1194/9411069.htm)
A book, I contend, that goes a long way to explain the why of this deplorable universal outlook.
Once again a book frightens him.
Professor Eckstein then goes on and asks:
” what other religion produces fanatics who send fiends like this out to kill hundreds and hundreds of innocents in the name of God, Omar?”
The answer to which is plain enough:
Zionist Judaism , of course .The very doctrine that perpetrated and glorifies the cold blooded massacre of 250 civilian oldsters, children , men and women, and the disemboweling of pregnant women in DEIR YASSIN by an organization that came to be a backbone of the Israeli Army.
Re: Straw man
1-Was the establishment of a Jewish/Zionist colony in Palestine, Israel, according to them, a Punishment of Arabs for perceived injustices inflicted on Jews throughout their common history?
OR
2-Is it an attempt to feign an effort to assuage their own sense of guilt for the crime committed by theirs and thus to justify to others, on the human frailty for retribution grounds, the unjustifiable crime of a racist colonialist conquest?
Either objective is a positive indicator in that it discloses the bankruptcy of the old rationales, frequently used earlier, to justify and defend what is being increasingly unveiled and progressively universally perceived for what it fundamentally and really is: a racist colonialist conquest.
Re: History vs. Myth
2. Shahak has been shown again and again on this site to be incorrect. A classic example: Omar has claimed again and again that Jewish doctors are not allowed to treat non-Jews, basing this claim on Shahak. But the reality is that in israel Jewish (as of course elsewhere) Jewish doctors always treat non-Jews, just like they treat Jews, and this includes treating wounded Palestinian terrorists, including those wounded fighting each other. Omar was given specific citations from major newspapers showing this occurring. So much for Shahak and his claims--yet Omar still (it's unbelievable, really)l claims Shahak as some sort of an authority.
Facts always work vs. Omar. History is not the same as myth.
Re: History vs. Myth: And if Omar is ACTUALLY interested in lea
But I think Omar, naturally enough, will prefer ignorance. Nevertheless, I urge him (and everyone else) to read this article. HNN is, after all, a site for actual historians.
Re: History vs. Myth/Back to A,B & C
A-"...Jewish doctors are not allowed to treat non-Jews, basing this claim on Shahak "
as documented and substantiated by the late Professor Israel Shahk ( reading Shahak is indispensable for comprehending Zionism and the Ecksteins of this world)
AND
B-The plain fact that some, possibly most, Jewish doctors DO treat non Jews.
Back to the A,B &C of the matter and,with the multiawarded professor, for practically everything:
-"ARE NOT ALLOWED" by Orthodox Jewish religious dictates, according to Professor Shahak, in no way is negated by the fact that some, most I guess,DO treat non Jews!
Back to the A, B & C:
A-Jews, just like Moslems, are NOT allowed to eat pork...
but
B-Some do.
Neither statement negates,invalidates nor nullifies the other which is, Prof,1+1=2
Re: History vs. Myth/Back to A,B & C
I therefore challenge Omar now to come up with mulitple cases where Orthodox doctors refused to treat dying non-Jews. WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE, OMAR?
And I am not talking about one wierd guy somewhere. I mean: to prove this isn't slander, Omar must come up with MULTIPLE MULTIPLE CASES. He must show that this is STANDARD PRACTICE among Orthdox doctors. Because THAT is what Omar is charging.
If he cannot, then he should drop this slander propaganda forever.
To help Omar get started in his research, I quote below an eye-witness account by Natan Nestel, from August 2007, writing about slanders such as the one Omar is retailing, which originate in 19th century European anti-semitism and make their way now around the Muslim world:
"Orthodox doctors do not make any distinction between a Jew and a non-Jew. I have seen such Orthodox impartiality with my own eyes. I underwent surgery a year ago at the Tel Aviv Medical Center. Several wounded Palestinians, among them militant terrorists, were hospitalized at the same time. It so happened that on the three Sabbaths that I was in the hospital, the doctors on duty were Orthodox. I asked them out of curiosity about their feelings regarding treating militant enemies. All said that in their eyes all patients are equal and should be treated equally.
"Moreover, one said that it was precisely because of his religious schooling and beliefs that he felt Jews and Palestinians were created by G-d equally and should be treated accordingly. Indeed, this is the faith that created the maxim: "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you."
classes of subjects
Re: History vs. Myth/Back to A,B & C
So once again I state:
"Sadly enough Professor Eckstein can NOT tell the diference between:
A-"...Jewish doctors are not allowed to treat non-Jews, basing this claim on Shahak "
as documented and substantiated by the late Professor Israel Shahk ( reading Shahak is indispensable for comprehending Zionism and the Ecksteins of this world)
AND
B-The plain fact that some, possibly most, Jewish doctors DO treat non Jews.
Back to the A,B &C of the matter and,with the multiawarded professor, for practically everything:
-"ARE NOT ALLOWED" by Orthodox Jewish religious dictates, according to Professor Shahak, in no way is negated by the fact that some, most I guess,DO treat non Jews!
Back to the A, B & C:
A-Jews, just like Moslems, are NOT allowed to eat pork...
but
B-Some do.
Neither statement negates,invalidates nor nullifies the other which is, Prof,1+1=2"
Re: classes of subjects
The parallels you draw on that are reasonable enough. But the issue under discussion is whether historically Islamic rule has been innocent of these oppressions.
Some people claim this; they point ad nauseam to one specific area, Ummayad al-Andalus, in one very specific and not very long period of time. Mr. Greene is simply pointing out the evidence--evidence which even Omar admits is extensive and convincing--that this Islamic myth of "innocence" of these oppressions is indeed a total myth.
best,
AE
Omar--prove the accusation, or drop it
If Omar believes that Jewish doctors (note it is no longer Orthodox Jewish doctors) are all violating acknowledged Jewish Law, he must PROVE that this is the case.
He has already refused the challenge to show that even ultra-Orthodox doctors do not treat non-Jews, even on Shabbat.
He refuses my challenge to show that Jewish doctors, including Orthodox Jewish doctors, do not treat non Jews. (BTW: note that Omar uses the phrase here, "SOME Jews", Omar--by using the phrase "some Jews" you imply that there are others, indeed many, who do not gentiles: WHO ARE THESE? give the evidence!).
Omar refuses the challenge because he cannot show that this is the case, and he cannot show that this is the case because--well--it isn't the case.
Okay. So NOW my new challenge to Omar is:
PROVE with EVIDENCE that all these Jewish doctors, including the Orthodox, are violating widely-acknowledged and accepted halakhic law by treating non-Jews. This includes, as I gave eyewitness testimony of, Orthodox Jewish doctors in Israel treating Muslim terrorists. On the Sabbath. PROVE that they are violating widely-acknowledged halakhic law, Omar.
Or drop this line of slanderous propaganda forever.
Re: Omar--prove the accusation, or drop it
Omar refuses my challenge to show that Jewish doctors, including Orthodox Jewish doctors, do not treat non Jews. By the way: note that Omar above uses the phrase, "some Jews", to refer to Jewish doctors treating non-Jews. Omar--by using the phrase "some Jews" you imply that there are other Jewish doctors, indeed many, who do not treat gentiles: WHO ARE THESE? give the evidence!
Re: Straw man
I was not saying anything about there being any punishment or assuaging any guilt - about which I see no guilt to assuage. I was, instead, making a point that what Mr. Young wrote is not consistent with the known facts.
So far as your contention more generally, it is based on a distortion of the facts. I start with the point that migrants seeking a better a life are not colonists. That becomes all the more obvious when one inquires as to which foreign power the alleged colonists were colonists. The fact is that the migrants came to advance their own cause, not the cause of some foreign power.
So far as wondering why Jews migrated to the ancestral home for Jews - i.e. Eretz Y'srael -, that was not a punishment for bad Arab behavior. It was, rather, an effort by oppressed Jewish people to better themselves.
However, it is important, in understanding why people would feel the need to migrate to Israel, to note that the reason was oppressive behavior by Europeans and Arabs. But, that is something different from punishment or any effort to assuage guilt.
Re: Straw man
No colonial power was involved in the founding of the Israeii state or stood behind it, nor were Jews agents of any such colonial power . The British empire was a target, not a supporter, of Jewish fighters for statehood. The British Army intentionally stood by and despite Jewish pleas allowed, e.g., the Mt. Scopas massacre in April 1948, where 70 Jewish doctors and nurses were roasted to death in burning buses by Arabs.
The Jews who came to what became Israel were not colonialists supported by a colonial power going to a foreign land to which they had no connection, which is the normal definition of colonialism (e.g., the right-wing British aristocrats who bought land in British Kenya). Rather these Jews were, as NF says, refugees --refugeesfrom centuries-long oppression--oppression which had been instituted against them both in Europe and Muslim lands. And they were going to a land to which they had a thousands-year-old connection (and a continual presence).
The "colonialist" canard wielded inaccurately (big surprise!) by Omar is simply a leftist propaganda-tool cleverly adopted by (ironically enough) fascist-leaning Islamists to undermine the raison d'etre of Israel, a polity which for the its first 30 years was itself dominated by a strongly left-wing culture, and where half the political landscape is still dominated by the very powerful Labour Party.
Re: classes of subjects
Re: Straw man
You've gone in a whole new direction with the argument.
Re: classes of subjects
Art
Re: Straw man
With due respect, I think you misread what Mr. Greene wrote. His argument was directed specifically at what Walt-Mearshimer wrote, viz., that there is innocence by Palestine's Arabs with reference to Israel's creation. He did, no doubt, bring other issues into his subject but made clear what his topic is, writing:
The myth of Arab innocence throughout history --particularly concerning Jews-- has long haunted British and American writing about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Professors Walt and Mearsheimer put it as follows in their anti-Israel tract:
...in the Christian West... Jews suffered greatly from the despicable legacy of Anti-Semitism... But ... the creation of Israel involved additional crimes against a largely innocent third party: the Palestinians.
This article seeks to disprove that false claim and demonstrate instead the systemic, juridical oppression, exploitation, and humiliation of non-Muslims --including Jews--in Islamic society.
So, I have not been off topic. I have been addressing the actual topic at hand.
You write: "Disbelief in those examples does not exist beyond the lunatic fringe, and certainly not in Walt-Mearshimer."
Have you any evidence for your proposition? It seems to me that whether or not either Walt or Mearshimer know anything at all about the history of the Muslim regions is an open question. Find some evidence that either of them do not accept what is, in the academic community, a very common view, namely, that Islam's treatment of non-Muslims is one of tolerance.
Perhaps, you are saying that the academic community consists of the lunatic fringe. That is not my argument but, because you ascribe a widely held view in the academic community to being the view of the lunatic fringe, I would be interesting to know the views actually held by Disbelief in those examples does not exist beyond the lunatic fringe, and certainly not in Walt and Mearshimer. So, how about some evidence for your position.
Re: Straw man
Delete the paragraph that reads: "Perhaps, you are saying that the academic community consists of the lunatic fringe. That is not my argument but, because you ascribe a widely held view in the academic community to being the view of the lunatic fringe, I would be interesting to know the views actually held by Disbelief in those examples does not exist beyond the lunatic fringe, and certainly not in Walt and Mearshimer. So, how about some evidence for your position."
Substitute:
Perhaps, you are saying that the academic community consists of the lunatic fringe. That is not my argument but, because you ascribe a widely held view in the academic community to being the view of the lunatic fringe, it would be interesting to know the views actually held by Walt and Mearshimer. So, how about some evidence for your position.
W and M
In Mearsheimer's stimulating "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" (2001), Christian Spain's destruction of the cultures which it conquered is mentioned in a prominent place, and Christian Spain is considered a classic expansionist state. Meanwhile early Muslim imperialism is missing entirely from the book, as is Muslim destruction of the cultures Islam conquered (e.g., in Christian Egypt and North Africa, Hindu Indus Valley). The Ottoman empire appears--but only as a victim of Italian or Russian imperialism.
Re: W and M
Are you saying that Mearsheimer is, stimulating and all, a polemicist? That sounds about right to me.
By the way, why do you use the term "stimulating"?
Re: W and M
In my view, Mearsheimer used to be an excellent inernational-systems analyst, an advocate of what is called in the field "structural realism." SR argues that state actions are determined overwhelmingly not by internal lobbying but by external situations--the prevailing anarchy, the desire for power-maximalization, the opacity of states to one another in terms of capability, the resulting "rational over-arming," the consequent "security dilemma" (my over-arming makes me secure, but you less secure so you arm even faster), and hence the prevailing "worst-case-scenario" thinking in governments. The whole situation is tragic--there are no specially evil actors (or they are rare), only the tragedy of great power relations under anarchic conditions. Important international events occur primarily because of the shifts in the distribution of power among states in such an anarchic system, i.e., for external reasons overwhelmingly, not for reasons of internal political pressures-- what the Germans call the "Primat der Aussenpolitik."
For 25 years M made his career along these lines of analysis; "Tragedy of Great Power Relations" is the culmination. (Walt is similar: his 1987 work "The Origins of Alliances" is a classic of structural realism.) ALL THIS M (and W too) has now thrown away in favor of an analysis of American international behavior based on Jewish conspiracy. It's a violation of his entire life's work. M has taken, so to speak, to wearing a tin-foil hat to protect him from evil internal influences.
Talk about tragedy...
Re: W and M
The problem with the basic argument of Mearsheimer and Walt here is that in 2002/2003 the Israelis, too, were not eager to do Iraq (they wanted the U.S. to preserve its power to go after Iran, which they saw as a far more dangerous enemy). The other problem is that ALL the major Iraq-invasion deciders were non-Jews: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Price. So, to deal with THAT evidentiary problem for their thesis, W and M had to seek out alleged Jewish puppet-masters at the second and third-level of the Pentagon and State Dept bureaucracy (Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle). Thus one absurdity was piled on another.
The facts are that Iraq went ahead despite the advice of Mearsheimer and Walt--and that does need an explanation. But Iraq also went forward against the advice of the Israelis (as we now know)--so perhaps THAT needs an explanation too! And the decisions were made by non-Jews anyway. All of which makes things dificult from the point of view of basing an argument on evidence and logic, which W and M earlier in their careers used to be able to do.
So, NF, Mearsheimer and Walt have indeed ceased to be scholars (which they definitely used to be) and have become (as you say) mere polemicists.
Re: W and M
I am not impressed by simplifying theories such as Structural Realism. And, it does not surprise me that those who support such a theory would fall prey to another simplifying theory, namely, that Jews control US policy. They have merely substituted one seemingly impersonal force for another. In any event, Judeocentric conspiracy theories are attractive mostly to conspiracy mongers and Antisemites.
As for your noted flaw in M & W's writing, we have both presented this same evidence to Clarke.
Re: W and M
I am not impressed by simplifying theories such as Structural Realism. And, it does not surprise me that those who support such a theory would fall prey to another simplifying theory, namely, that Jews control US policy. They have merely substituted one seemingly impersonal force for another. In any event, Judeocentric conspiracy theories are attractive mostly to conspiracy mongers and Antisemites.
As for your noted flaw in M & W's writing, we have both presented this same evidence to Clarke.
Re: W and M
I hear a lot of Jews say they are "committed" to the survival of Israel. When I was growing up, I heard an analogy between the difference between "committed" and "involved". The way it went was, "In a breakfast of ham and eggs, the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed." Right now, only about 1/3rd of the Jews are in Israel. They are committed; the rest are (at best) involved.
Judaism will likely not survive the destruction of Israel and in my opinion it should not. A commitment of 9/10s, not 1/3rd, of Jews is necessary to save Israel. And, don't blame us for the results of the failure of Jews to commit. You begged us for centuries to "give us our own country". Now we have. The results of your failure to hold it is not on our heads.
Re: Straw man/Colonization and Colonies
To establish a "colony" you do NOT necessarily have to belong to and have the backing of an existing state on whose behalf you do that .
It could be for laying the foundations of a state as is ,exactly, the case with Israel.
Back to the fundamentals of the issue.
Colonization, whose output is/are colonies, came to be universally known and acknowledged as that movement which involves:
- THE settlement of ALIENS on a foreign inhabited/populated land
-always against the opposition of the indigenous population of that land and
-almost always by direct or indirect, other’s, force.
-with the ulterior objective to exploit that land and establish an economic/military base populated by ALIENS
That is as in the case of the French in Algeria, the Dutch in Indonesia, the Boers in South Africa or the Belges in the Congo.
The essence of those universally recognized colonies was the FORCED settlement of aliens on a foreign populated/inhabited land, initiated and maintained/sustained by brute force against the will and opposition of the indigenous population of that land with the ulterior objective to exploit that land and establish on it an economic/military base populated by Aliens.
That obviously applies to the case of Israel whose Jewish "colons" :
- ARE definitely aliens to Palestine
-Forced their way into an inhabited/populated land Palestine
-Against the express will and opposition of its indigenous Palestinian people.
-Established the economic /military base populated by ALIENS; Israel.
Patently Jewish émigrés into Palestine , Zionist colons, were politically motivated to establish a state of their own instead of the usual case of being directly in the service of an existing state although both their entry and sustenance was only enabled and protected by an existing state Britain without whose use of military force they would NOT have neither gained entry, as alien colonists as distinct from pilgrims, nor been able to maintain the colonies they thus established.
Re: W and M/Recognition and Atonement
Re: Omar--prove the accusation, or drop it
1-HE Can NOT recall what he wrote
And sadder still that:
2 -He Can NOT read
But saddest of all is that :
3-He does NOT comprehend what he reads
Professor Eckstein attributes to me a claim, about Jewish doctors NOT treating non Jews, that he himself noted that it was Shahak’s, that I quoted, NOT mine.
Let us consider:
1***:“ (And Omar should stop bringing up the miserable Israel Shahak,.)
“/History vs. Myth (#129704)by art eckstein on December 2, 2008 at 9:54 PM.
In which he forgot that he himself knows that it was a Shahak contention that I quoted not mine.
2***:”B-The plain fact that some, possibly most, Jewish doctors DO treat non Jews.”/ Re: History vs. Myth/Back to A,B & C (#129713)by omar ibrahim baker on December 3, 2008 at 5:13 AM.
AND
“B-The plain fact that some, possibly most, Jewish doctors DO treat non Jews.”/ Re: History vs. Myth/Back to A,B & C (#129730) by omar ibrahim baker on December 3, 2008 at 1:28 PM.
Both verbatim quotes which indicate exactly where I stand on the issue.
3*** :“Omar, Shahak does not substantiate anything. “/Omar--prove the accusation, or drop it (#129733) by A. M. Eckstein on December 3, 2008 at 2:01 PM.
In which only a cursory look at the following extract from what Professor Shahak wrote on the issue, and the foot notes /references thereto, will indicate the extent of Eckstein’s comprehension of what
“substantiating” means .
Be that as it may be it is always instructive and illuminating to read what Professor Shahak wrote about the issue of Halakhaic dictates to Jewish doctors re JEWISH doctors treating non JEWS.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
“According to the Halakhah, the duty to save the life of a fellow Jew is paramount 14 . It supersedes all other religious obligations and interdictions, excepting only the prohibitions against the three most heinous sins of adultery (including incest), murder and idolatry.
As for Gentiles, the basic talmudic principle is that their lives must not be saved, although it is also forbidden to murder them outright. The Talmud itself 15 expresses this in the maxim 'Gentiles are neither to be lifted [out of a well] nor hauled down [into it]'. Maimonides 16 explains:
"As for Gentiles with whom we are not at war ... their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued, for it is written: 'neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow' 17 - but [a Gentile] is not thy fellow."
In particular, a Jewish doctor must not treat a Gentile patient. Maimonides - himself an illustrious physician - is quite explicit on this; in another passage 18 he repeats the distinction between 'thy fellow' and a Gentile, and concludes: 'and from this learn ye, that it is forbidden to heal a Gentile even for payment...'
However, the refusal of a Jew - particularly a Jewish doctor - to save the life of a Gentile may, if it becomes known, antagonize powerful Gentiles and so put Jews in danger. Where such danger exists, the obligation to avert it supersedes the ban on helping the Gentile. Thus Maimonides continues: ' ... but if you fear him or his hostility, cure him for payment, though you are forbidden to do so without payment.' In fact, Maimonides himself was Saladin's personal physician. His insistence on demanding payment - presumably in order to make sure that the act is not one of human charity but an unavoidable duty - is however not absolute. For in another passage he allows Gentile whose hostility is feared to be treated 'even gratis, if it is unavoidable'.
The whole doctrine - the ban on saving a Gentile's liife or healing him, and the suspension of this ban in cases where there is fear of hostility - is repeated (virtually verbatim) by other major authorities, including the 14th century Arba'ah Turirn and Karo's Beyt Yosef and Shulhan 'Arukh 19 . Beyt Yosef adds, quoting Maimonides: 'And it is permissible to try out a drug on a heathen, if this serves a purpose'; and this is repeated also by the famous R. Moses Isserles.
The consensus of halakhic authorities is that the term 'Gentiles' in the above doctrine refers to all non-Jews. A lone voice of dissent is that of R. Moses Rivkes, author of a minor commentary on the Shulhan Arukh, who writes.20
Foot notes:
14 Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Hoshen Mishpat' 426.
15 Tractate 'Avodah Zarah, p. 26b.
16 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Murderer' 4, 11.
17 Leviticus, 19:16. Concerning the rendering 'thy fellow', see note 14 to Chapter 3.
18 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Idolatry' 10, 1-2.
19 In both cases in section 'Yoreh De'ah' 158. The Shulhan 'Arukh repeats the same doctrine in 'Hoshen Mishpat' 425.
20 Moses Rivkes, Be'er Haggolah on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Hoshen Mishpat' 425.
.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
http://www.geocities.com/israel_shahak/book1.htm ) and (http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/1194/9411069.htm)
Re: Omar--prove the accusation, or drop it
2. Omar cannot come up with any cases where Jewish doctors, even ultra-Orthodox Jewish doctors, even on the Sabbath, refuse to treat non-Jews--even vicious Palestinian terrorists. He refused to even try. Why is that? So even if Shahak was correct, it would by a tiny and irrelevant point at the level of theory.
3. By contrast, I gave eye-witness examples of Jewish doctors, even ultra-Orthodox ones, treating non-Jews, even on the Sabbath--and including even vicious Palestinian terrorists. How is this to be explained? Does Omar believe that these ultra-religiouis doctors were knowingly violating widespread and accepted interpretations of Halakhic law? I challenged him to prove THAT, with evidence. He refused the challenge.
4. The REASON why Jewish doctors, including ultra-Orthodox Jewish doctors, treat
non-Jews just as they treat Jews, including even Muslim terrorists, and including
even on the Sabbath, is because the Halakhic law cited by the miserable Shahak
(which has to do narrowly with healing on the Sabbath, not on any other day
anyway) was always the opinion only of a tiny minority of theorists and has never ever been
followed by any substantial portion of any Jewish community. Not in 2,000 years. This shows why it is intellectually wrong to depend on the miserable propagandist Shahak.
Omar, however, is bound up for his own poisonous ideological reasons in
showing that Judaism requires that Jewish doctors not treat non-Jews. It's a pathetic way of dealing with the violence of which Islam has always partaken: it's called "tu quoque" technique, the Latin for "you do it too". It's
simply a slander.
Unless Omar can prove that this accusation ISN'T a slander--by coming up with EVIDENCE showing that while "some Jews" as he puts it happen to treat non-Jews, LOTS of others do not treat non-Jews,because of acknowledged Jewish law.
I say again: let's see the EVIDENCE of that, Omar! Let's see the EVIDENCE that this occurs! Or else--drop this accusation as the slander it is.
Re: W and M/Recognition and Atonement
Re: W and M
I think that Jews are certainly committed to Israel's survival. But, that is different from wanting to abandon one's life and move to Israel.
As for Christians giving the country to the Jews, that is quite a bit of an exaggeration. My recollection is that Jews had to fight the wars started by the Arabs to prevent Jews from having a state. I also recall that Jews were migrating to the region notwithstanding the fact that the land was controlled by the Ottoman Empire. I also recall that the British backed off on their support of the Balfour Declaration and restricted the right of Jews to live in Israel. And, I recall that the British did not really want to end their rule and were pushed out. So, give is too strong a word
Re: W and M/Recognition and Atonement
So far as I know, Judaism is native to the Middle East and, most especially, the noted region.
Re: Omar--prove the accusation, or drop it
Mr. Shahak is, in simple language, mistaken.
There are theoretical debates about all sorts of topics among Rabbis, something that Mr. Shahak may not be well versed. That is part and parcel of Rabbinic Judaism, which is a law based religion.
Like Islam, consensus among Rabbis often forms around a legal position. However, unlike Islam, Judaism does not believe that the holy book is the uncreated word of the Almighty, which means that Rabbis debate and then can re-debate whether to give meaning to given passages of scripture or, in fact, to adopt notions that they think are just. And, legal positions can and have changed with time, something that Mr. Shahak and, evidently, you have trouble grasping.
It is worth noting that the greatest religious thinker in Jewish history - the author of a primary source for determining what any specific Jewish law is -, namely, Maimonides, thought it perfectly acceptable to treat non-Jews - which means that such issue was a non-issue, no matter what Mr. Shahak thinks. In fact, Maimonides was the great Islamic leader Saladin's physician as well as the physician to many others in Saladin's circle of power. Maimonides did so even though he though he had been severely mistreated by Muslims, which is why he left Andalusia.
I have previously posted writings by rabbis who have examined the issue closely and show that Shahak is simply wrong, even on his own terms. You, however, persist without even batting an eyebrow. That makes you a propagandist of the worst kind.
Re: W and M/Recognition and Atonement
Saying that something was an historical mistake does not make it one.
However, since you have expressed your view without any justification, I shall express mine.
The refusal of Arabs to accept Israel was and remains a great historical mistake, one that has helped set the Arab region behind where they might have been. In truth, Israeli Jews had and still have much to offer the Arab regions.
Re: Straw man
But he confuses immigration and colonization.
On his theory, indigenous Lebanese would be correct to try to attack and expel Palestinians from Lebanon. They are unwelcome and discriminated against by the government, and have been forcibly kept from becoming Lebanese citizens and having citizen rights. Presumably, Omar would support the indigenous Lebanese on this policy. Indeed, the Christian Lebanese, the OLDEST cultural population in Lebanon, with a tradition there going back 2000 years, tried exactly that, to expell the Palestinians through violence and massacre, in 1975 and gain in 1982. Remember Sabra and Shatila? The latter was the work of Lebanese Christians.
Presumably, Omar, adhering to his theory, would their attack on 'colons'.
Re: Straw man
"Presumably, Omar, adhering with rigor to his theory, would support their 'resistance' to 'colons.'
I am, of course, being sarcastic--just pointing up Omar's lack of intellectual consistency.
Re: Straw man/Colonization and Colonies
Again, as to opposition, until 1948 all land owned by Jewish occupants of the Mandate had been SOLD to them (at high prices) by Arabs. As to what happened after 1948, the Arabs, rather than come to some compromise political solution, chose to fight--and lost. They could have won, in which case there would have been a second Holocaust. But they lost. There were consequences. Omar sees this as not merely immoral, but uniquely immoral--I guess because Arabs/Muslims lost a war.
It seems to me that Omar is using these terms "colonialism", etc., in order to graft fashionable leftist intellectual ideas onto his own Islamofascism.
But he confuses immigration and colonization.
On his theory, indigenous Lebanese would be correct to try to attack and expel Palestinians from Lebanon. They are unwelcome and discriminated against by the government, and have been forcibly kept from becoming Lebanese citizens and having citizen rights. Presumably, Omar would support the indigenous Lebanese on this policy. Indeed, the Christian Lebanese, the OLDEST cultural population in Lebanon, with a tradition there going back 2000 years, tried exactly that, to expell the Palestinians through violence and massacre, in 1975 and gain in 1982. Remember Sabra and Shatila? The latter was the work of Lebanese Christians.
Presumably, Omar, adhering with intellectual rigor to his theory about the rights of the "indigenous", would support these Christians' heroic 'resistance' to 'colons.'
I am, of course, being sarcastic--just pointing up Omar's lack of intellectual consistency. As if that were news.
Re: Straw man/Colonization and Colonies
Propaganda terms make not an argument.
Let us start with the definition of colony. Here is what my dictionary states:
col·o·ny: \ˈkä-lə-nē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural col·o·nies
Etymology: Middle English colonie, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French, from Latin colonia, from colonus farmer, colonist, from colere to cultivate — more at wheel
Date: 14th century
1 a: a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state b: the territory inhabited by such a body
2: a distinguishable localized population within a species
3 a: a circumscribed mass of microorganisms usually growing in or on a solid medium b: the aggregation of zooids of a compound animal
4 a: a group of individuals or things with common characteristics or interests situated in close association b: the section occupied by such a group
5: a group of persons institutionalized away from others ; also : the land or buildings occupied by such a group
[Source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008.]
Note that the political definition, which is what we are talking about here, involves "retaining ties with the parent state." In the case of Jews, that was not true. There was, in fact, no parent state for Jews. Rather, there were people escaping oppression migrating to a place where refuge was available in order to make a life for themselves. That is a fact whether or not you want to believe it. And, those who migrated purchased land, often at above market rate, which is why sellers were willing en masse to sell. And that is a reason why so many Palestine Arabs cooperated with Jews in selling the land. These are facts.
It is, of course, true, for example, that the French colonized Algeria. But note the difference, French colonists "retaining ties with the parent state." Jews did no such thing. Jews drove the imperial power out.
Now, if you want to have a serious discussion, you have to use words with the meanings that are generally understood or, alternatively, to adopt a lexicon explicitly by stating that you will use the word "colonist" whether or not such people "retain[ed] ties with the parent state." You have not done that because, Omar, your intentions are propaganda, not history and certainly not scholarship.
Further, there is no word "colon." It is something you have made up or have copied from someone else who made it up. The "colon" is a part of the human digestive system. Look it up!
In any event, let us say that you were, notwithstanding the dictionary definition of "colonist," correct and that Jewish Israelis are properly classified as colonists. What of it? So are Americans. So are Canadians. So are Australians. So are Mexicans. So are Panamanians. So are Cubans. So are Arabs who live outside of Arabia. So are Brazilians. So are Peruvians. So are Chileans. So are Venezuelans. So are Costa Ricans. So are Guatemalans. So are Argentinians. Etc., etc.
Wake up, Omar. Much of the world consists of colonies and former colonies. And, by your definition, the percentage of the world that consists of colonies is even larger than it really is. And, if everyone moves back to their ancestral homes, we would all likely move back to Africa. Then again, Jews might return to their ancestral home which is - now how about that - the land you claim they are colonizing. But again, your analysis is all nonsense because your concept of colonization is nonsensical propaganda that has only a convenient ad hoc application - meaning, your intention is mere propaganda.
It is time, Omar, to move beyond your propaganda and to begin to think for yourself instead of repeating mindless propaganda. There may be an argument against Jews migrating to what is now Israel and living among Arabs. You, however, have not thought of it. I have a better explanation for your view. I call it bigotry.
Re: Omar--prove the accusation, or drop it
1- Am I, are we, to take your word or the Talmud's which categorically states:
"As for Gentiles, the basic talmudic principle is that their lives must not be saved, although it is also forbidden to murder them outright.
The Talmud itself 15 expresses this in the maxim
'Gentiles are neither to be lifted [out of a well] nor hauled down [into it]'. "
2-Are we to take your word re Maimonides or Maimonides' own words about his own views?
"Maimonides 16 explains:
"As for Gentiles with whom we are not at war ... their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued, for it is written: 'neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow' 17 - but [a Gentile] is not thy fellow."
In particular, a Jewish doctor must not treat a Gentile patient. Maimonides - himself an illustrious physician - is quite explicit on this; in another passage 18 he repeats the distinction between 'thy fellow' and a Gentile, and concludes: 'and from this learn ye, that it is forbidden to heal a Gentile even for payment...'
However, the refusal of a Jew - particularly a Jewish doctor - to save the life of a Gentile may, if it becomes known, antagonize powerful Gentiles and so put Jews in danger. Where such danger exists, the obligation to avert it supersedes the ban on helping the Gentile. Thus Maimonides continues: ' ... but if you fear him or his hostility, cure him for payment, though you are forbidden to do so without payment.' In fact, Maimonides himself was Saladin's personal physician. His insistence on demanding payment - presumably in order to make sure that the act is not one of human charity but an unavoidable duty - is however not absolute. For in another passage he allows Gentile whose hostility is feared to be treated 'even gratis, if it is unavoidable'."
( All statements enclosed between inverted "............"commas are from Shahak's earlier mentioned book:
http://www.geocities.com/israel_shahak/book1.htm ) an(http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/1194/9411069.htm)
AS is evident in the extract therefrom in my post #129792 above and here Professor Shahak made detailed reference to his sources re the Talmud and Mainonides.
The only way you can objectively refute Professor Shahak is to find fault in his references .
You can NOT speak more authoratively about the Talmud than the Talmud itself NOR speak for Maimonides when Maimonides himself is on the record about a certain point.
Other rabbis having different interpretations is another matter altogether.
Re: Omar--prove the accusation, or drop it/A Correction
"about Jewish doctors NOT treating non Jews, that he himself noted that it was Shahak’s, that I quoted, NOT mine."
Should, for precision and consistency, actually read:
"about Jewish doctors NOT allowed to treat non Jews, that he himself noted that it was Shahak’s, that I quoted, NOT mine."
Re: Omar--prove the accusation, or drop it
Do not tell me how one should read the Talmud. You, frankly, have no idea yourself and are taking the word of someone who seems to know comparatively little about the topic.
For your information, the Talmud involves discussions, Rabbinic decisions, poetry and debates. You, being ignorant of the subject, treat it as if it were an authoritative law code, which is definitely not the case. So, your citation to it as containing an authoritative conclusion on the topic is, frankly, moronic, the result of your ignorance and, given your refusal even to examine real sources of scholarship, an example of bigotry and hatred on your part that seems as blind and boundless as any I have ever seen.
As for what you cite from Maimonides, he provides an argument for helping non-Jews. Read what you posted more carefully. The bottom line is that Jews are not precluded from treating non-Jews, just as I said.
Again, Maimonides was the court physician to Saladin, a Muslim and, moreover, a great man. If Maimonides really thought it wrong under Jewish law, he would not have treated Saladin. He, after all, believed in following Jewish law. He, you will note, could have had a more illustrious career than he had merely by converting to Islam but did not because he believed in Judaism. He, after all, was famous even among Muslims and Christians, who read his philosophical writings at length and thought them to be truly first rate. So, you have this all wrong, as is your custom.
I am really tired of having to make you look like a moron and a bigot. Are you ever going to learn?
Re: Omar--prove the accusation, or drop it
None of the above replies to the questions:
“1- Am I, are we, to take your word or the Talmud's which categorically states:(etc etc)? “
AND
“2-Are we to take your word re Maimonides or Maimonides' own words about his own views?”
I do, however, understand your eagerness to wiggle out through vituperation and obfuscation. I can also understand your intemperate ire at the honourable late Professor Shahak for facing the truth and honestly and objectively reporting it.
That must hurt some…..quite understandable
The conclusion that:
"The only way you can objectively refute Professor Shahak is to find fault in his references.
You can NOT speak more authoratively about the Talmud than the Talmud itself NOR speak for Maimonides when Maimonides himself is on the record about a certain point."
never the less stands since you fail to find fault with his oeuvre and its substantiation.
You and many of yours are, I guess, for a different, more RP friendly, interpretation …but that is immaterial since it is NOT your perception nor is theirs the issue.
Re: Omar--prove the accusation, or drop it
The Talmud does not "categorically state." Ergo, there is no way to answer a question because it is based on a false premise.
Try looking at the collection of writings called the Talmud. It is not a law code so its statements are not of the type you allege. As such, I could not answer your question with either a yes or a no because the question is moronic.
As for Maimonides, the material you quote says he thought that non-Jews can be treated medically. So, your problem is what?
Hence, Maimonides does not support your thesis either. Have you bothered even to read the material you posted? I doubt it.
Again, Omar, what you write is stupid, an attempt to inject hatred and bigotry onto this website.
Re: Omar--prove the accusation, or drop it
In any case, in that theoretical debate there was more than plenty of opinion on the other side:
e.g., Joseph Caro (1488-1575), whose work the Shulchan Aruch was considered authoritative commentary on halahkah, and became a major source of decision-making in Jewish communities. Caro' s Shulhan Arukh explicitly stated that the Torah mandates the physician to heal, and decreed that withholding treatment was akin to shedding blood. The injunction to heal included non-Jews as well, based partly on interpretation of Leviticus 25:35, insisting upon fair treatment of strangers in one's midst, and partly for pragmatic reasons, to encourage good relations with Christian or Arab neighbors.
Such rulings permitted Jewish physicians to treat non-Jews, a particular benefit for northern European Christians, who often sought out cures from Jewish doctors. They did so despite Church condemnation of this practice, and the subsequent castigation of Jews as either sorcerers (if the treatment worked) or poisonous murderers (if it did not)--and in either case pointing towards big trouble either for the doctor or the Jewish community.
At the upper end historically there's "the Rav", Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik (b. 1903), who ordained some 2000 Orthodox Rabbis. He too argued that Jewish doctors must treat non-Jews, even on the Sabbath, and he rejected any argument from pragmatism as the reason, relying on natural morality.
Perhaps, Omar, now you will understand why you, for your part, were wise to reject my challenge to you to provide specific evidence that Jewish doctors don't treat gentiles, or even specific evidence that (more narrowly) Orthodox Jewish doctors don't treat gentiles on the Sabbath, You can't prove this--and the reason is, because it is UNTRUE.
Orthodox Jewish doctors, highly religious men, not only treat non-Jews, and do so regularly on the Sabbath, but they save the lives of vicious Muslim terrorists who have killed Jews. And on the Sabbath. (I gave examples).
I know of no modern Orthodox leader or modern Orthodox physician who has ever held that a doctor not treat a non-Jewish patient or has practiced in that way.
The charge is an anti-Semitic libel. It has its basis in 19th century European anti-semitism, Of course, Omar has shown himself perfectly comfortable with spreading such libels, and--even worse, both morally and intellectually--he seems impervious to change when confronted with the actual facts.
Re: Omar--prove the accusation, or drop it
1-Is the following from the Talmud or NOT:
"The Talmud itself 15 expresses this in the maxim
'Gentiles are neither to be lifted [out of a well] nor hauled down [into it]'. "
2-Did Maimonides have the following to say, in internal quotes, or was that an invention of Professor Shahak:
"Maimonides 16 explains:
"As for Gentiles with whom we are not at war ... their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued, for it is written: 'neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow' 17 - but [a Gentile] is not thy fellow."
In particular, a Jewish doctor must not treat a Gentile patient. Maimonides - himself an illustrious physician - is quite explicit on this; in another passage 18 he repeats the distinction between 'thy fellow' and a Gentile, and concludes: 'and from this learn ye, that it is forbidden to heal a Gentile even for payment...'
However, the refusal of a Jew - particularly a Jewish doctor - to save the life of a Gentile may, if it becomes known, antagonize powerful Gentiles and so put Jews in danger. Where such danger exists, the obligation to avert it supersedes the ban on helping the Gentile. Thus Maimonides continues: ' ... but if you fear him or his hostility, cure him for payment, though you are forbidden to do so without payment.' In fact, Maimonides himself was Saladin's personal physician. His insistence on demanding payment - presumably in order to make sure that the act is not one of human charity but an unavoidable duty - is however not absolute. For in another passage he allows Gentile whose hostility is feared to be treated 'even gratis, if it is unavoidable'."
3-Are foot notes 15,16 ,17 and 18 which refer to the sources real or bogus invented by Professor Shahak?
Re: Omar--prove the accusation, or drop it
Read what I wrote before. Changing the phrase "categorically states" to "expresses this in the maxim" does not alter a debate into a law. Hence, what you write is stupid.
The same for your repeat of Shahak's version of Maimonides, for reasons already asserted and, in addition, given the material that Professor Eckstein has now presented.
If you persist, Omar, I am going to complain to management that you are using this website to propagate religious hatred.