WINSTON MID EAST ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY July 27, 2008 Email:
gwinston@interaccess.com
www.freeman.org & http://www.gamla.org.il/english
RAYMOND IBRAHIM: SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST, THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT IN
CONTEXT
forwarded with comments by
Emanuel A. Winston,
Freeman Center Middle East Analyst & Commentator
The following is too logical, too sensible for people to comprehend unless
they can connect the dots of history. Every nation on this planet is the
result of prior conquest innumerable times.
Once it was Rome. Once it was Greece. Once it was Genghis Khan. Once it was
the Soviet Union which is now re-expanding under the Putin doctrine.
Once the Jews had a kingdom that covered the current west bank and parts of
the east bank of the Jordan Rive. The Jewish people of today have a sliver
of their ancient historic homeland which goads the radical Islamists who
believe it is only they who must rule the world - without the Jews or the
Christians. China and India will dispute this as the Muslims expand their
world conquest for a Global Caliphate for Islam.
###
RAYMOND IBRAHIM: SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST, THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT IN
CONTEXT
JihadWatch - July 24, 2008
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/021934.php
The Palestinian-Israeli question has been a thorn in the world's side for
some time now. And clearly, many people—not just Arabs—sympathize with the
uprooted Palestinians. The argument, in a nutshell, is that Israel was
forcefully and artificially created and populated by people who, unlike the
Arabs, are not truly indigenous to the land of Palestine. Moreover, the
"true" inhabitants—the Arabs—have been forcefully ejected, oppressed, not
given a "voice," etc. In a word, the Jews have seized another people's land.
But it's somewhat ironic that while the Arabs are crying out for
"humanitarian" justice (via the dissolution of Israel), and many non-Arabs
want to see them receive it, few consider this matter with the aid of those
two disciplines that were originally the backbone of all intellectual
discourse and which can truly better elucidate the situation: history and
philosophy, or simply, common sense.
Historically, the land of Palestine has been conquered, and conquered, and
conquered again—by a myriad of peoples, including Hebrews, Babylonians and
Persians, Greeks and Romans, Arabs, Crusaders, Turks, and now finally,
modern-day Jews. Conquest and "land-grabbing" have always been something of
a natural occurrence throughout world-history: lands were conquered and that
was the end of it—till the next conqueror came along. In fact, if modern-day
Jews have usurped Palestine, so too have the Arabs before them. In the early
7th century, the Arabs, recently unified under the banner of Islam and its
Prophet, burst out of Arabia and conquered as many lands as they possibly
could—the entire globe being the (currently unrealized) goal. Thus
Palestine, originally, was not "Arab" and definitely not "Muslim." Generally
speaking, it was Semitic.
So, if Palestine was forcefully usurped from Christian Byzantium by invading
and often ruthless Muslim hordes (who did not ask for or give "humanitarian"
justice), how does that make it "officially" and "rightfully" theirs, once
and for all? Granted: the Jews too have through the force of arms taken
Palestine. But exactly how is that any different than what the Muslim Arabs
did nearly 1400 years prior? Nor does the passage of time justify
ownership—and even if it did, still the Jews have a greater claim since
Palestine was theirs centuries before the Muslim occupation (though the
Canaanites might beg to differ). And by our standards of justice, the
passage of time never exonerates any crime: many aged men are arrested and
brought to justice decades after their original transgression.
Realistically speaking, almost every major nation today—including the U.S.—
is a product of one people's conquest over another. Let us not forget that
throughout world-history whole peoples have been either entirely wiped out
or assimilated with their conquerors, their names, languages, cultures, and
religions relegated to a historical footnote. Today's countries are peopled
by an amalgamation of the descendants of the conquerors and the conquered.
So why should one group—Arabs—have a special, "legitimate" case against
their conquerors?
Istanbul, what was once known as Constantinople and the jewel of all
Christendom, was violently sieged for centuries by its hostile Islamic
neighbors, till it fell in 1453, its original Christian inhabitants
massacred, and Christianity's most exalted church, Hagia Sophia, converted
into a mosque. (At least the Jews, unlike the Muslims, haven't converted the
al-Aqsa Mosque into a Jewish temple, the former itself built atop the
remains of Solomon's Temple). Thus Palestinians have as much right to
Palestine as do the descendants of evicted Christians to Anatolia: but can
we imagine that, based on "justice" and "rule of law," Turkey will give up
its hard-earned conquests back to the rightful owners?
Besides Turkey, all of today's Muslim countries were taken by force and
bloody conquest—often from Christian, Zoroastrian, Hindu, or even pagan
peoples. Should Muslims, then, in the interest of "humanitarian-justice,"
which they constantly evoke in their own cause (while uttering jihad among
themselves), withdraw from all those countries? Obviously an
impossibility—not least because they have no "true" home that was not taken
by force to withdraw to. Even Arabia, home of Islam, was militarily
conquered by that religion. Moreover, the original inhabitants who would
have a claim to these lands are no more, extinct or assimilated through
conversion and Arabization.
Logically, if Israel should cease to be, then so should almost every major
nation today. Along with the entire Islamic Nation, Americans should be
prepared to pack up and evacuate the U.S., giving it back to the natives;
people of Norman-Saxon blood should leave Britain to the Britons; and only
Gaelic speakers should flourish in France. Surely this all sounds
ridiculous. But exactly how less ridiculous is it for the Palestinians to
demand that Israel cease to be—especially when they predicate this demand on
things such as "international-justice," a word that is meaningless for
Muslims outside of an Islamic framework, where "justice" is defined by
Islamic, not humanitarian nor international, law. And Islamic law says it's
just, indeed, compulsory, for Muslims to seize the infidels' lands by the
sword.
The problem, of course, is that the West is plagued by na ve utopianism. And
the Muslim world, ever the realistic entity, is quick to exploit this
disease: they call for an unprecedented form of utopian justice, which they
know is a na ve West's soft spot, while among themselves they acknowledge
their theological right to conquer the world in the name of Allah. In a
"perfect world," (itself an oxymoron), no nation would ever disturb the
sovereignty of another. But even if one group of people can agree to this
does not mean all people will reciprocate—even if they are the initial
beneficiaries.
The West should beware that utopianism is an intellectual product of power
and prosperity—not reality. While power and prosperity always fluctuate at
the hands of time and chance, reality is always consistent. And reality, in
all its ugliness, has always shown that, in the end, utopian dreams
dissipate, and only the strong survive.
Posts
