The Small Kindness (Qur’an 107): A Magnanimous Solution to the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Positive-sum westerners see “two states” as the obvious solution to the conflict on the land between the river and the sea. But analyzed in terms of honor-shame reasoning and the players involved, not only is that solution not going to work, but it’s actually designed by “two-stage” Palestinian strategists, to pursue the zero-sum dream: “Palestine from the river to the sea.” When we understand that the problem is not “how much” territory is Israel willing to concede to satisfy the Palestinians?” but “how do Arab Muslims overcome the humiliation that is Israel, and find their dignity in the global community without subjecting infidels,” different landscapes and alternatives arise.

First it becomes crystal clear that resolving this contest in a way that convinces Islamist supremacists to stand down becomes imperative not only for Israel, but for the West and all other peoples around the world, who, in the early decades of the third (global) millennium, are also the target of this zero-sum, honor-driven, imperialist version of monotheism: one God, one rule, one religion. The idea that “land for peace” is an option (much less the only true option), has progressives, Jewish and not, convinced that if only they cram this solution down Israel’s throat (for its own good of course, à la J-Street), they’ll solve the problem. They seem oblivious to the possibility that such a solution only pours oil on the Jihadi fire.

The alternative perspective, however, by considering real causes, opens up new thinking and new solutions. This means viewing the specific conflict not, as the Palestinians would insist, between the Israeli Goliath and the Palestinian David, but as the very term intifada means, the “shaking off” of a bug (Israel) by a great beast.

Who is the great beast? Obviously not the Palestinians. They may be that small part of the great beast’s skin that shudders off the bug. But they are proxies for a much greater and more powerful creature. In other words the conflict in Arab and Muslim eyes is not between mighty Israelis and poor Palestinians: if it were that alone, the humiliation of losing to the Jews might be less painful. It’s between Israel, the only state of the Jews in the world (and a democracy thriving in very difficult conditions), fighting off 22 Arab and 57 Muslim authoritarian states, and beyond them, a wide range of Jihadi and Da’wa non-state actors, all driven by a triumphalist, hard zero-sum vision of Islam, one that cannot tolerate the very existence of an infidel state in the midst of Dar al Islam. In short, it is a battle front in a war between Muslim theocratic, authoritarian political culture and the democratic West. And for the West not only not to understand that, but side with the triumphalist Palestinians (for whom no Jewish state is tolerable), against Israel, is more than foolish, it’s self-destructive.

In that framework, I’d like to suggest a Qur’an-inspired alternative, also an obvious solution, but one that addresses the heart of the dilemma, not only of the “local” Arab-Israeli conflict, but the global “Muslim-infidel” conflict, namely, the difficulty so many Muslims have in living peaceably with their neighbors, whether Muslim or infidel. The greatest challenge of this global generation – whether viewed as the first generation of the 21st century or the second of the 15th century) is to Muslims to effect major changes in the hard zero-sum way they have historically related to kuffar (infidels), and women, and anyone less powerful than they. Everyone’s life, on this increasingly connected planet at the beginning third millennium, depends on Muslims and infidels rising to this challenge.

In this sense, Israel is the Muslim’s Dreyfus Affair, their test of modernity. Can they shift moral paradigms and leave behind triumphalist religiosity? Can they live at peace with the rest of the world without trying to subject them? The test case, is how they get along with the Jews in their region, esp since these sovereign Jews have proven considerably more peaceful towards Arab Muslims (even the most belligerent), than these have even towards each other, mu

To those of Allah’s faithful who would like Islam to stand in a place of honor among the nations of a peaceful and peace-loving world, I make this suggestion that, I think, will set you on a fruitful path. In the Qur’an, Surah 107 explains to people that, at the Last Judgment, Allah will not smile on those who “would be seen (i.e., admired) yet refuse the small kindness.” And yet this is precisely what Arab and Muslims have done to the Jews for the last 66 years.

There are 1.x billion Muslims in the world, or about a fifth of the global population; there are 12 million, Jews, or about a fifth of a percent of the world population. Of the entire area occupied by Arab-speaking majorities in the world, greater Israel constitutes a fifth of a percent of that total. Given all that Islam shares with Judaism (dare one say, adopted from Judaism), do you Muslims really think that on the Day of Judgment, Allah will forgive you if they refuse us the “small kindness” of being allowed to prosper on this tiny sliver of land? For the sake of world peace – literally – do not refuse us this “small kindness.”

 

27 Responses to The Small Kindness (Qur’an 107): A Magnanimous Solution to the Arab-Israeli Conflict

  1. Rokossovsky says:

    A beautiful proposal but how can it be accepted by Islam given the anti-Jewish/anti-Other Koranic/Hadith stuff? Would the ‘small kindness’exception to the main themes of Islamic doctrine thus (hopefully) necessitate a revision/overcoming of the hate stuff, do you think?? How likely /possible may this all be?

    • Richard Landes says:

      The way people read their scriptures reflects their psychological condition: if self-confident in their faith, they can read matters generously; if filled with doubts and fears, they go for the worst stuff (coercive purity). The Qur’an is a treasure chest for both. In a sense, this is the only peace whereby infidels (like the West) can rest easy that their Muslim neighbors are prepared to live peacefully with them.

  2. Just to stay with you on the spiritual logic of the problem: it is indeed about confidence, but how to regain confidence when there is this immense guilt for the crimes perpetrated (the worst stuff)? – As I’ve said before, I think it’s for the Germans to take the lead in asking for the ‘small kindness’. Because they have done it: taken upon them the guilt for the criminal war their nation has brought upon the world when it had lost itself under the Nazi-regime. – On the likelihood that it will work, I refuse to speculate. Because I don’t think that political miracles are impossible. But we are entirely in the hand of God when it comes to miracles. Ourselves we can do no more than remain faithful to the law and explain the law to those who seem to have lost their way. – Unfortunately, even in the West there aren’t many political leaders who are capable of explaining the law. It’s another old idea of mine: our political representatives must stop talking like politicial scientists. And learn again how to speak to people. – On that BDS France facebook post glorifying the 3 ‘martyrs’ killed recently on the Temple Mount by the ‘sionist terrorist occupiers’, there were of course many commenters praising them. One of them cited the Quran (surah 2, verse 154): “Et ne dites pas de ceux qui sont tués dans le sentier d’Allah qu’ils sont morts. Au contraire ils sont vivants, mais vous en êtes inconscients.” I replied to him: “Encore faudrait-il qu’ils l’aient trouvé, le chemin de Dieu. Je pense qu’ils vont connaître la surprise de leur vie, ces trois mécréants, quand ils se verront l’entrée au paradis interdite par Celui qui juge en dernière instance. Quand Il leur dira: “Vous pensiez vraiment pouvoir prendre ma place en fixant le sort de votre prochain juif les armes à la main? Et vous ne saviez vraiment pas qu’usurper mon autorité est le blasphème suprême? Le seul péché que même moi qui suis grand et miséricordieux ne peux pas pardonner?” (I don’t know what it’s worth. But I like doing that stuff.)

    • Cynic says:

      Pity you didn’t include an English translation.
      My high school French, not having been practiced in many years, has failed me.

    • Improved Google translation: “Supposing they have indeed found it, the path of God. But I think they will meet the surprise of their life, these three disbelievers, when the entrance to paradise will be forbidden to them by Him who judges in the last instance. When He tells them: “Did you really think you could take my place and decide the fate of your Jewish neighbour by force of arms? And were you truly unaware that to usurp my authority is the gravest form of blasphemy? The only sin that even I who am great and merciful cannot forgive?”

      • Cynic says:

        Thank you.
        Pity this is not widely used especially when they declare that it’s “Allah’s will” and ask them if it is not “Allah’s will” that they live in the mess they have made?

  3. Cynic says:

    ” In the Qur’an, Surah 107 explains to people that, at the Last Judgment, Allah will not smile on those who “would be seen (i.e., admired) yet refuse the small kindness.” ”

    From what I’ve understood from following this 21st Century problem, is that the verses commanding Muslims to behave in an ethical manner akin to Western Culture, apply only to fellow Muslims. Certainly not the to infidel.

    • I think you’re right to point out that the islamic definition of the infidel is the root of all problems. Because it is such a simplistic definition. And such a unilateral one. – Not being an infidel, I would have no problem with the shahada, if it weren’t for the second part about the prophet Muhammad. Who is he to usurp God’s authority in declaring himself the prophet of God? – The other one, Jesus, who declared himself to be the Son of God, went even further. But in a way he was more logical, because it implied that he did indeed have God’s authority. He also warned all those who didn’t believe in him as Christ that they would not enter the kingdom of his Father. But he certainly didn’t authorise his fellow humans to pronounce judgment on those infidels. Let alone exhort them to execute the death sentence.

  4. Guilt, and what happens when it is too great to contemplate. I think now that it is the simplest explanation for the ‘obsession’ of anti-Semitism. Unbearable guilt forces them to persevere. (I’ve never read Sartre, and don’t know what exactly he explained when he pointed out that anti-Semitism was a passion, not an opinion. So I may be just crashing into an open door. But I also don’t remember having it seen explained elsewhere.)

    I worked it into my conclusion on the Macron declaration, after reading Jean Daniel’s recent column on ‘The Territories or Peace’ (Nouvel Observateur 2017-06-01). I copy it here, if I may. (It’s in French. But there is Google for automatic translation.)

    Jean Daniel: “Pour ma part, je ne me suis jamais résigné à mettre de Gaulle du côté des antisémites. Sans doute, l’expression “sûr de lui” à propos d’un peuple qui a risqué sa disparition ne relevait pas de la meilleure inspiration, mais je me suis trompé en déclarant qu’il était nationaliste comme Maurras. Aujourd’hui, je pense que sa déclaration (bien qu’on puisse la rattacher à Barrès plutôt qu’à Maurras) est incroyablement prophétique.” – Le problème avec le jugement du général de Gaulle à l’époque, et avec la réévaluation que Jean Daniel en fait aujourd’hui, c’était bien cette forme nouvelle et implicite de l’antisémitisme, qui consiste à faire l’impasse sur la responsabilité de la partie adverse dans toute l’histoire du conflit: celle des dirigeants arabes et palestiniens. Qui depuis le début du conflit en 1936-39 étaient des fauteurs de guerre antisionistes impénitents! Et qui en toute probabilité ont été encouragés à le rester jusqu’aujourd’hui par cet antisémitisme d’en haut si marquant chez les dirigeants occidentaux, en Europe tout particulièrement. – Et quand un jeune Président comme Emmanuel Macron prononce alors une phrase qui laisse penser qu’il n’est pas frappé par la même cécité antisémite, peut-être justement à cause de son jeune âge, Jean Daniel ne trouve pas mieux que lui tomber dessus pour l’admonester! – Ce qui m’amène à ma conclusion: le caractère obsessionnel de l’antisémitisme a son origine dans un sentiment refoulé de culpabilité. C’est parce que la culpabilité des antisionistes arabes fauteurs de guerre et des antisionistes occidentaux complices des fauteurs de guerre arabes est si difficile à contempler, ils doivent coûte que coûte persévérer dans la faute! – Cette conclusion rejoint d’ailleurs une intuition que j’ai depuis longtemps: que c’est aux Allemands de se mettre en première ligne pour conduire ce changement dans la politique européenne sur le ‘conflit au Moyen-Orient’. Parce qu’ils l’ont fait: ils ont pris sur eux la culpabilité pour la guerre criminelle qu’ils ont infligée au monde quand ils s’étaient égarés sous le régime nazi; et ils en ont accepté toutes les conséquences. Exactement ce que les Arabes, de Palestine ou d’ailleurs, ont encore à faire si la ‘solution des deux Etats’ veut être autre chose que la préparation d’une nouvelle étape dans la guerre antisioniste – l’échec redouté par le ‘détestable’ Benjamin Netanyahou. Si les deux Etats veulent avoir une chance de vivre dans la paix. – L’indicateur concret pour cette résolution dans le chef des Palestiniens est aussi facile à nommer: c’est la forfaiture du ‘droit au retour’ des réfugiés de guerre que les Palestiniens doivent accepter comme la conséquence de la guerre antisioniste de 80 ans dont ils se sont rendus coupables. – http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/monde/20170601.OBS0145/israel-les-territoires-ou-la-paix.html

  5. w.w. wygart says:

    Taking Prof. Landes’ point and turning it into the form of a question, I might ask what force or combination of forces would induce the Muslim world at large to embrace the embracing of the “Small kindness” when till now it has not? What has to change?

    I’m just finishing reading James Bowman’s ‘Honor, a history,’from his position, as best I understand it, the Judeo-Helenic-Christian West didn’t really turn the corner on the more archaic forms of blood/honor until almost a whole generation of its finest young men perished in the First World War.

    I’ve argued here before that the Muslim world seems to be undertaking its own version of Europe’s Thirty Years War and that possibly a new and more modern Muslim polity will emerge in the [bloody] aftermath. But, what kind of a mortality crisis would be necessary to induce that pivotal of a shift? Can we stand by and [continue] to watch in horror, or be our own éminence grise and [continue] to push things along in directions we favor a la Richelieu?

    It could go several ways, Spengler [David Goldman] argued a number of years ago Islam itself showed signs of eventual collapse as a culture-system, maybe, but Spengler has been wrong on a number of occasions, so far, about things collapsing. So we are back to either the shattering effect of global jihad upon Muslim polity in general or a third as yet unguessed process.

    What might a third way be? Simple knowledge of the Sura does not seem to suffice.

    • There is no other teaching than the teaching by example. The West must simply act its part in seeing to it that justice is done and seen to be done. It’s the only way to encourage reasonable people on the other side to do the same.

      Of course there is also the problem of rapid population growth supplying a reserve army of ‘superfluous young men’ that is just there for political adventurers to be enlisted.

      On how to teach them spiritually I have no idea. I just give you this quote from Arthur Schopenhauer that explains very well how difficult that will be. (I found this somewhere as a quote from Arthur Schopenhauer, but could never find it in the German original. So it may not be from Schopenhauer, although it very much sounds like him. If anyone can point me to the source, I would be very grateful.)

      “The usefulness of Mohammedanism lies in its intrinsic vacuousness: there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet. This simple creed of the unity of God imposes no intellectual or higher spiritual demands upon the believer, but promises to satisfy all his most carnal urges, even allowing him to pursue a course of self-indulgence and extreme sensuality in the afterlife. – The Koran is a confused and disorganized literary production, an embarrassing potpourri of Talmudic fable and pre-Islamist paganism; yet despite its lack of sophisticated content, it is reputed by believers to be a miracle, for how could a book meant to be recited in such mellifluous cadences as our wonderful Koran be composed by Mohammed, an illiterate peasant, save by the inspiration of the Angel Gabriel? Thus, when recited, this demonic production seems to cast an hypnotic spell bewitching and subduing all those believers within hearing distance, which may explain the wild popularity of certain Koranic readers down throughout the ages, such as the medieval Hafiz. – Also, the bellicose character of this book with its repeated calls of “Raise your swords and slay the unbelievers!” is enough to inspire a savage fanaticism in even the simplest and most self-effacing of believers. This means that the Koran isn’t so much a religious book as it is a fiery call to arms; as such, it is the most disgusting piece of propaganda ever written, shamelessly enlisting the disenfranchised and exploiting the emotional volatility of the young as the raw material by which it spreads its tentacles.”

    • And I still believe that by far the best attempt at spiritual teaching in this regard was Pope Benedict’s Regensburg lecture of 2006 on faith, reason and violence.

    • Cynic says:

      I think that this following article by Prof. Landes provides an insight into the mind that needs to change. Though from an Israeli point of view it also applies to various Muslim groups as well due to their Tribal/Clan culture as we can see today in the Middle East as well as in Asia where the Alawite and Sunni clashes in Syria and Pakistan.

      http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/176673/emotional-nakba

  6. Anti-Semitism is like the Bermuda Triangle of political reason: it simply disappears never to be seen again. Let’s write some political fiction to prove it. – French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel issue a joint statement with a French-German message of support for Israel: condemning not only the terrorist attack on the Temple Mount, but especially condemning the Palestinian political and religious leadership for exploiting the attack in an orchestrated campaign of rioting and violence in complete disregard for the loss of life on either side of what is so clearly an anti-Zionist war inspired by Jew hatred. – “When the two-state-solution was recommended by the UN General Assembly in 1947 it was rejected by the Arab and Palestinian leadership with a threat of violence against Jews in all Arab lands. When in 1948 the Jewish leadership implemented the UN recommendation and founded the State of Israel, the Arab and Palestinian leadership chose war against Israel over a peaceful two-state-solution. In addition to that they made good over the years on their threat against the Jewish citizens of their respective Arab States. Today, the Palestinian leadership on the contrary accuses Israel of blocking the two-state-solution, and again uses threats of violence in support of it. – We must say clearly to the Palestinian leadership what is already clear to the whole world: that a two-state-solution cannot come about through violence if it is to become the foundation for a just and lasting peace. – We will also examine shortly with the government of Israel how best to redirect all EU financial assistance to the PA and to UNRWA in a manner that will prevent the funding of terrorism and bring more benefits to the civilian population.” – It sounds like fiction, doesn’t it? And it sounds like fiction, because it sounds so reasonable, right? So somewhere political reason must have disappeared. Leaving otherwise reasonable people no other choice but to convene the UN Security Council to discuss the problem. As if there were anything left to discuss other than the disappearance of their own political reason.

    PS: The link to your ‘magnanimous solution’ to the conflict being of course that in my view guilt also prevents the regaining of confidence and the restoration of political reason in the West, especially in Europe. Why does a 97-year old publisher like Jean Daniel come out of retirement to tell the new French President, who is almost 60 years younger than him, that he is wrong about anti-Zionism and that de Gaulle back in 1967 was right, even prophetically right?

    • PPS: It would be more precise not to speak of guilt, but of guilt-avoidance. Although guilt-avoidance only comes up when there is guilt to be avoided. Which means that a persevering anti-Zionist intuitively knows about the guilt he is avoiding by his perseverance. That he must work so hard and repeat himself endlessly only shows that guilt-avoidance isn’t working. And it isn’t working because the guilt is real. The whole pattern in other words is a revelation of his bad faith. – Which isn’t a new insight either: bad faith always betrays itself in one way or another. There must be popular expressions for that, but I haven’t found any good ones yet. The best one I found so far is not a popular expression but from Mark Twain, and it’s not entirely to the point: “If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything.”

    • PPPS: Anti-Semitism, guilt-avoidance, and the sin underneath it

      Lacking the courage to call your Arab neighbour a criminal when he is a criminal? Because you don’t see him as your neighbour anymore?

    • Winston Churchill did have the courage to insist on having champagne when he was with Abdulaziz ibn Saud. But that was about as far as he went, I believe. At least, I have never seen a record of how he answered Abdulaziz’s plea: “Don’t ask me to love the Jews. It would be against my religion.”

    • The antisemitism from above, which is mostly implicit, is marked by ambiguity and indecision, as when Jean Daniel wants to distinguish between acceptable anti-Zionism and unacceptable anti-Semitism. This ambiguity and indecision is clear enough, for example, in the reactions of Western leaders to each new violent episode of the Palestinian conflict: there are few who do not support Israel’s right to exist; some even go as far as to support Israel’s right to defend itself. But none has the courage to assert that the right to exist includes the right to be left in peace, and that consequently all those who constantly force Israel to defend itself are unrepentant criminals! – Ambiguity is thus clearly associated with a lack of courage. A lack of courage that can be interpreted from a warrior angle, as fear of a violent clash. But it can also be interpreted from a moral and political angle, as fear of a confrontation with the truth: the fear of telling one’s Arab or Muslim neighbour that he is a criminal, when he is a criminal. A fear that reveals above all that one does not really accept him as one’s neighbor. This, I believe, is the true sin which underlies this whole affair of anti-Zionism in the West; which isn’t so much aimed at the Jews who are the victims of anti-Zionism; but rather at the the anti-Zionist Arabs and Muslims who are receiving the Western anti-Zionists’ support. This Western ambiguity can only be understood as weakness. By the criminals first and the islamists in particular. But also by lawful Muslims who are tolerant towards the West, and who are the first to have to fight this battle against the islamists, over there as well as here. And who thereby are not getting the assurance that they have allies in the West. Allies who are clearsighted and not confused about the enemy. Allies who are courageous and willing to fight for victory. But above all, allies who are not hypocrites and on whom they can rely. – Winston Churchill had the courage to insist on drinking champagne in the presence of Abulaziz ibn Saud. But did he have the courage to go further? We do not know how he responded to Abdulaziz’s exhortation: “Do not ask me to love the Jews, it would be contrary to my religion.” And it is to be feared that he chose to avoid confrontation. Exactly as we do today.

    • [Sorry for that, improved Google translation follows.] Antisemitism from above, which is mostly implicit, is marked by ambiguity and indecision. As when Jean Daniel wants to distinguish between acceptable anti-Zionism and unacceptable anti-Semitism. Ambiguity and indecision are clear enough, for example, in the reactions of Western leaders in each new violent episode of the conflict in Palestine: there are few who do not support Israel’s right to exist. Some even go as far as to support Israel’s right to defend itself. But none has the courage to assert that the right to exist includes the right to be left in peace. And that consequently all those who constantly force Israel to defend itself are unrepentant criminals! – Ambiguity is thus clearly tied to a lack of courage. A lack of courage that can be interpreted from a warrior’s viewpoint, as fear of a violent confrontation. But it can also be interpreted from a moral or political viewpoint, as fear of a confrontation with the truth: the fear of telling one’s Arab or Muslim neighbour that he is a criminal, when he is a criminal. A fear that reveals above all that one does not really accept him as one’s neighbour. This, I believe, is the true sin which underlies this whole affair of anti-Zionism in the West. A sin that isn’t so much aimed at the Jews, who are the victims of anti-Zionism; but rather at the the anti-Zionist Arabs and Muslims, who are receiving the Western anti-Zionists’ support. – In the non Western world, Western ambiguity and indecision are naturally understood as weakness. By the political criminals and particularly the islamist supremacists. But also by lawful Muslims who feel no hostility or intolerance towards the West, and who are in the first line to fight this battle against islamism, over there as well as here. And who cannot feel assured that they have allies in the West. Allies who are clearsighted and not confused about the enemy. Allies who are courageous and willing to fight till victory. But above all, allies who are not hypocrites and on whom they can rely. – Winston Churchill had the courage to insist on drinking champagne in the presence of Abulaziz ibn Saud. But did he have the courage to go further? We do not know how he responded to Abdulaziz’s exhortation: “Do not ask me to love the Jews, it would be contrary to my religion.” And it is to be feared that he chose to avoid confrontation. Exactly as we do today.

    • What I tried to do here is taking Richard Landes’s idea on the link between confidence and magnanimity and develop it further: as playing a part not only in Muslims’ behaviour, but also in the West. With guilt-avoidance preventing the restoration of confidence on both sides, albeit for somewhat different reasons. And with the underlying Western sin of Orientalism hindering the alliance between lawful Muslims and lawful Westerners that is absolutely required to vanquish islamism. – I’m not an apologist for Edward Saïd, I haven’t even studied him. But I do believe that there was a point somewhere in his criticism of Orientalism. It wouldn’t have hit so many nerves otherwise. ‘Il n’y a que la vérité qui blesse.’

  7. Cynic says:

    Could it be that the political fiction is just that, because the West has used the Arabs as a means to grind down the Israelis with all EU financial assistance to the PA and to UNRWA, over the years.
    Whenever the Arabs got beat it was the Israelis who got the threatening finger of “morality” preaching.

    • Not sure I’m getting your point. Are you implying that loss of political reason has nothing to do with it? That Westerners are doing it on purpose? In a secret conspiracy to drive Israel out of existence? That would be ludicrous!

      While looking at this Macron thing (the commemoration of Jewish deportations from France and his admission of French guilt as well as his statement “not to give in one inch to anti-Zionism, for it is the reinvented form of anti-Semitism”) I had a look again on youtube at de Gaulle’s famous press conference on Israël in 1967, and at Mitterrand’s indignant rejection of Jewish requests for a French apology, and it is quite clear that they are completely unaware of their mistakes. The current debate is also quite heated and I find this in a way more worrying. Because these are all people who were in no way personally implicated and for most of them weren’t even alive at the time. Why do they still find it so difficult to do what Macron obviously has no difficulty with: to look at the past and to see the shame where it existed, and where it didn’t exist? It’s as if the people who invented padamalgam are having real trouble in applying it.

    • De Gaulle en 1967 était antisémite exactement comme Jean Bricmont et tant d’autres antisionistes le sont aujourd’hui: de cette manière implicite qui consiste à faire l’impasse sur la responsabilité de la partie adverse dans toute l’histoire du conflit, celle des dirigeants arabes et palestiniens. Qui depuis le début du conflit avec la révolte arabe en 1936-39 étaient des fauteurs de guerre antisionistes impénitents rejetant toute solution pacifique à deux états! Et qui en toute probabilité ont été encouragés à le rester jusqu’aujourd’hui par cet antisémitisme d’en haut si marquant chez les dirigeants occidentaux, en Europe tout particulièrement. – Cela commence par sa façon de mentionner l’hostilité des populations arabes au foyer sioniste en Palestine: comme s’il s’agissait … d’un phénomène simplement météorologique. Il suggère ensuite que c’était le seul manque de ‘modestie’ de la part de ce ‘peuple d’élite, sûr de lui et dominateur’ qui l’a empêché de trouver avec ses voisins un modus vivendi pacifique. Pour enfin faire un procès d’intention à Israël en attribuant le doublement de sa population par l’immigration à une action délibérée trahissant une volonté d’expansion. Quand cette immigration massive était au contraire le résultat d’une politique criminelle d’expropriation et d’expulsion menée par les régimes arabes envers toutes les communautés juives vivant dans leurs pays depuis avant même la conquête arabe! – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toKG_MFh7IU

      [Automatic Google translation] De Gaulle in 1967 was anti-Semitic exactly as Jean Bricmont and so many other anti-Zionists are today: in this implicit way, which consists in ignoring the responsibility of the opposing party in the whole history of the conflict. The responsibility of the Arab and Palestinian leaders, who since the beginning of the conflict with the Arab revolt in 1936-39 were impenitent anti-Zionist warmongers rejecting any peaceful two-state-solution! And who in all probability have been encouraged to remain so until today by this anti-Semitism from above that is so striking among Western leaders, especially in Europe. – It begins with his way of mentioning the hostility of the Arab population to the Zionist homeland in Palestine: as if it were … just a meteorological phenomenon. He then suggests that it was only a lack of ‘modesty’ on the part of this ‘elite, self-confident and domineering’ people that prevented it from finding a peaceful modus vivendi with its neighbours. To end with submitting Israël to a trial of intent by attributing the doubling of its population by immigration to a deliberate action betraying a will to expand. When this massive immigration was the result of a criminal policy of expropriation and expulsion carried out by the Arab regimes towards all the Jewish communities living in their countries since before the Arab conquest!

      Underlying it all is that basic assumption that Israël is one of us (they are well organised people who can act rationally and efficiently – and in de Gaulle’s case he actually says so) whereas the Arabs, well, they are none of all that, and much of what they are doing is theatre one needn’t lose sleep over. So most European anti-Zionists are probably not the obsessive type like the BDS crowd, they are just careless.

    • To Cynic: it wasn’t my intention to make you shut up. Because there may be a point here, that cynicism or incredulity are an explanation for why Israeli diplomacy is so astonishingly timid in fighting anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism, especially in Europe. There is an anti-Zionist war going on after all, for 80 years already if you let it start with the Arab revolt of 1936-39 (and why not let it start with the Balfour-Declaration and make it a 100-year war). A war which can easily be proven to be unjust, and therefore criminal. A crime against humanity, in other words, that does not belong to the past, like the Holocaust, but to the present, and that can be happily denied, all the way up to the top of our European governments, simply by omitting to recognize it. – So incredulity on the part of Israël to accept that European anti-Zionism is mere stupidity, and not the old antisemitic leaning that continues to work secretly towards the destruction of Israël, is to some extent understandable. But only to some extent. If it is hard to believe that Europeans, who are funding the PA, UNRWA and a myriad of pro-Palestinian NGOs, don’t realise at all how much damage they are doing, it is easier to understand how that impression can come about in a democratic polity: some do realise the damage that is done; but others then fight them, because they believe other considerations must prevail; and in the end the confusion becomes so great that, instead of a clear choice, a compromise is made that makes no sense anymore. – Political reason does not disappear in the Bermuda Triangle of anti-Semitism as if it were blasted out of existence by a surgical strike. It quite literally disappears by sinking into oblivion, just like a boat sinks into water with too many air bubbles in it.

  8. mgoldberg says:

    A problem with your ‘solution’ is that you would be boiled in oil by every Imam, leader and proponent of Islam
    for suggesting that Islam is not doing just that by allowing us to exist, despite our ‘filth’.
    Yes… that is how they interpret Judaism, jews, Israel, and the rest of the world that dares question their ‘interpretations’ their ‘history’s, their ideology and theology.
    You are dancing about with this idea, and it does have some merit, indeed, if one would look at the Qu’ran, hadiths, sunna, as westerners used to- I think of the presidents of the US, all of whom had very similar sentiments about the ruthlessness of Islam, and it’s founder, and it’s history, especially the mutlple writings of John Quincy Adams, who really explored the issues and wrote much that has been ignored and forgotten.

    Islam’s Jihad, is the comittment to submit all others, and that is exactly what trying to peddle this soft solution to Islam, and to non muslims engages- their desire to rage at the idea that they are anything but the most benign, righteous, important, necessary, ‘faith’ on the planet, and if you or anyone denies this then you are a zionist slug, an infidel, a bigot and a hater.

    And there goes your attempt at ‘logic’. You ignore the ‘logic’ of Islam, and it’s Jihad.

  9. jon says:

    Actually, the “small kindness” argument can rightfully be made in the context of Western humanitarian thinking alone. Specifically, by the time Israel was founded, Western thinking dictated that historically mistreated groups such as descendants of American slaves or Native Americans deserve some form of egalitarian reconsideration. By this standard, surely the Arab world gets off easy by allowing its centuries oppressed Jewish dhimmis (in some places “untouchables”) a tiny parcel of land. In other words, no need to even talk about the Holocaust or Europe or Ashkenazi Jews; simply Arab-Jewish oppression warrants Israel’s existence.

    • Cynic says:

      I liked the gist of your argument.
      Maybe it is time to diplomatically lay centuries old “Arab-Jewish oppression warrants Israel’s existence.” on thick, using,
      “Western thinking dictated that historically mistreated groups such as descendants of American slaves or Native Americans deserve some form of egalitarian reconsideration.” as a previous judgement to bolster their case.
      But then of course Jews are considered white and that puts them beyond the pale.
      The majority of Israeli Jews today are from Arab countries, darker than Obama, but many from India, and Ethiopia of course,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *