It’s Not about Islam & Judaism, It’s About Anti-Colonialism, Territory, Liberation, and Lives

-

nir rosen the washington note twn 2.jpgThis is a guest note by journalist and Middle East and Islamic issues expert Nir Rosen.
On Sunday, February 28th the New York Times published an outrageous oped by Efraim Karsh full of lies, distortions and mistakes.
Karsh describes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an urgent foreign policy matter for the United States.
It doesn’t appear to be urgent. One more American administration has prostrated itself before Israeli arrogance and expansionism. Karsh mentions some sort of “100-year war between Arabs and Jews.” There is no 100 year war between Arabs and Jews. There is a 100 year colonial struggle between Zionist Jews and the Palestinian people (and briefly the Lebanese as well).
He hopes that the “Islamic nation can make peace with the idea of Jewish statehood in the House of Islam.” Its not about Jewish statehood in the house of Islam.
Its about Zionist Jewish settlers dispossessing the Palestinians and occupying Palestinian land. And killing Palestinians. Its not a religious conflict. Its a territorial one, an anti-colonial one, a national liberation struggle, even if the discourse used these days to describe it is often religious.
“Muslim states threaten Israel’s existence not so much out of concern for the Palestinians, but rather as part of a holy war to prevent the loss of a part of the House of Islam,” he says. He is lying. Who is he talking about? Iran?
Even if that was a real threat and not merely grandstanding, who else is there? the Saudis, the Turks, the Egyptians, the Jordanians and others all collaborate with Israel. Syria?
Hardly a threat and eager for peace as long as it can regain the occupied Golan heights. And the Israeli police force could conquer Syria in a few hours. Hizballah? Not a state and not trying to destroy Israel but merely protect Lebanese territory.
Hizballah threatens a bloody revenge if Israel attacks Lebanon, but that’s it. And he is also lying when he says that Muslim states believe in some kind of holy war to prevent the loss of a part of the house of Islam. Which Muslim state? Nobody talks like this or says these things.
Most Muslim states either collaborate with Israel or just don’t care (like Iraq today).
Karsh is a third rate academic who clearly has not visited much of the “Muslim World” about which he writes with generalizations, clichés, racism, Orientalism and a right wing pro Israeli agenda.
He falsely claims that Arabs consider themselves superior to all other Muslims. And he falsely claims that Hijazis regard themselves as the only true Arabs.
This is just not true. There is always the occasional chauvenist but he wouldn’t be typical of the views of most “Arabs” or Hijazis.
Karsh claims that Muslims view themselves as part of the House of Islam and the rest of the world as part of the House of War.
I have worked in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Kenya, Bosnia, Turkey, Yemen, Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Qatar. I have attended hundreds of sermons in mosques and I watch Arabic satellite television regularly. In the last seven years of working in the Muslim world I have never heard anybody use these terms.
You have to go to obscure websites to find these terms used today. There may be a theological basis for these terms of course but just like most Christians, for most Muslims, religion is but a small part of their identity, and often not the most important part, and Islam is not the main guide to their daily actions.
House of Islam and House of war are not common household terms in the Muslim world and not an honest description of the way the vast majority of Muslims view the world.
These references to Saladin and other early Muslim rulers have very little to do with the lives of most modern Muslims
He falsely claims that Muslim and Arab rulers vilify “infidels.” This is also a lie.
Notice Karsh provides no examples. Most Muslim and Arab rulers do not “villify” the “infidels,” in fact they cooperate with them regularly and most Muslim and Arab countries are thoroughly integrated with the rest of the world.
While many of their people might resent the West for a variety of reasons, with only a few exceptions, most Muslim and Arab dictators collaborate closely with the West and even often with Israel.
They do not view the world as divided between Muslims and infidels any more than most Christian rulers do. And certainly bringing up Nasser as an example is silly, since he would have been the last Arab ruler to think in these terms. Opposing Western Imperialism is not the same as opposing infidels.
Karsh wants the United States, and (notice he says “us”) to take a harder line with Iran.
There is a trend lately of New York Times oped contributors calling for more wars against Muslims. Whether against Iran or most recently calling for less concern over civilian Afghan casualties.
And of course Thomas Friedman has never met a war he didn’t support.
Karsh assures us that most Muslim states would not support Iran if more sanctions are imposed or if the United States attacked Iran. So therefore we shouldn’t be afraid of going to war. Except that there is also no solid evidence presented that Iran even wants nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile most Muslims and Arabs are probably more concerned about the one nuclear state in the Middle East that does regularly initiate wars of aggression — Israel.
Karsh refers to “the customary lip service about Western imperialism and “Crusaderism.”” He is trapped in the past.
What Muslim government uses these terms? Karsh is taking the statements of extremists like Bin Ladin and claiming that they are made by Muslim rulers. But talk of Crusaders is far removed from the Muslim mainstream.
Karsh reduces everything to religion.
Imagine if all Muslims believed that Pat Robertson or other insane Christian extremists were typical of all Americans and that we all believe that Haitians made a pact with the devil.
Another mistake he makes is conflating the leaders of Muslim countries with the people. Despite the hatred that many Sunni Muslim dictators feel for Iran, their people may have a very different attitude.
Iran and particularly its leadership remain very popular throughout the Muslim and Arab world, among the PEOPLE. Of course they would be helpless to intervene should the United States attack Iran because they are ruled by pro American dictators.
Karsh welcomes what he claims are the “latest changes in the Obama administration’s Middle Eastern policy, which combine a tougher stance on Iran’s nuclear subterfuge with a less imperious approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict.” So far there is no evidence of Iran’s nuclear subterfuge and most experts actually dismiss concerns that Iran is seeking to gain nuclear weapons.
And what American administration ever had an “imperious approach to the Arab Israeli conflict”? and given that we are subsidizing and arming the Israelis don’t we have the right to make demands of them? Instead Prime Minister Netanyahu humiliated Obama’s envoy Mitchell and we just accepted it. Bush, Clinton, Obama, all cravenly bow to Israeli extremism.
“A military strike must remain a serious option: there is no peaceful way to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, stemming as they do from its imperialist brand of national-Islamism.” If Iran is imperialist where has it expanded? It is America and its ally Israel that engage in Imperialism.
Khomeini may have dismissed nationalism, as Karsh says, but it was only rhetorically. Iranians remain extremely nationalistic, even chauvenistic and the regime has had to make many concessions to ‘Persian’ nationalism and ‘Persian’ traditions and the regime acts strategically to further its own interests, not those of the Muslim world, so their anti nationalism is nonsense and quoting
Khomeini from nearly 30 years ago is irresponsible when describing the regime of today. Karsh jumps from a minor dispute over whether to go by the “Persian Gulf” to the “Arabian Gulf” into discussing religious conflict, hatred of infidels and support for a war against Iran.
Several years ago I was invited to take part in a conference sponsored by the Department of Defense’s Central Command entitled “Rethinking the War on Terror: Developing a Strategy to Counter Extremist Ideologies.” The proposed issues to be discussed were: Radical Islamist Ideologies; House of Islam v. House of War; Koran and Jihad; Sectarianism in Islam and the Politicization of Sectarian Identity; Cult of Martyrdom; Temporal Goals (e.g., destruction of Israel, United States out of Iraq, topple Saudi Government, etc.); Countering the Radicals’ Arguments, Tools, and Attraction; Individual liberties and the Sharia mindset; Understanding popular grievances and terrorist/insurgent objectives; Engaging failed or failing states to deny sanctuaries to terrorists and non-state actor organizations.
Karsh’s silly article reminded me of this conference. At the time I explained that I viewed the entire approach as all wrong.
People don’t mind when you tell them that they’re wrong about the facts, but when you tell them their very approach is wrong they can get upset. But the very approach these people were using to conceptualize the issues was wrong, and not a single non Orientalist middle east studies academic would agree with these culturalist assumptions.
I didn’t even know how to talk to these people because the barrier between us began at the epistemological stage, in the way we approached acquiring knowledge about the middle east.
Their obsession with things like ‘dar al islam/dar al harb’ and terms like ‘jihad’ and ‘cult of martyrdom’ showed how they focused on the exterior shell and fetishized this Orientalist idea of ‘Muslim culture.’
They assumed that there was some kind of microchip that makes Muslims tick and once you learn the cultural script, you could understand these people. This stems from the idea of ‘varying rationalities,’ that Muslims do not think in the same way we do, that you need to understand their own form of rationality and you do that through learning the language, the ‘culture’ and then you can decode them. But why are ‘Muslims’ a group to begin with?
This obsession with a term like ‘dar al harb,’ (house of war) keeps on coming up.
Sometimes I think that more Americans than Muslims know what it means. They assume that a medieval term somehow trickled into the ‘Muslim’ mentality and decides how they see the world. This assumes that all Muslims understand such a term in the same way, and that the term acts in a specific way not contingent on historic and contemporary conditions, both of which are untrue
This is Orientalism, America is never studied in this way, do we read the Bible to understand American ‘culture’?
And this ‘cult of martyrdom’ business, based on the assumption that Muslims have some kind of reptilian brain, thinking in pre-destined cultural scripts.
People were anti-American when they were secular and nationalistic, they were resisting America as Marxists, and are now resisting it as Islamists, the fight creates the cult, not the other way around, fetishizing it and obsessing with it is just a way to obscure the real grievances. And what is the ‘Sharia mindset’?
There is no such thing as Shari`a. It is a very broad term, it means Islamic law, but only one of its schools, Maliki fiqh, alone consists of tens of thousands of pages and interpretation. It is not an ‘object’ that people can just assimilate
There is this American racist right-wing obsession with the idea of Muslims spreading Sharia in the West. Then people like Karsh or the organizers of the conference I went to pick up these catch-phrases and make them into an object of scientific inquiry
There is no such one thing called Sharia, or Islamic law, it gets interpreted in many different ways, for Saudis it is the religious police, for Iranians it is banks and women driving, for others it is no banks. Sharia can be a political slogan, especially in Egypt, as a sign that separates Muslim from non-muslim rule. It varies greatly and cannot be simplified, it has no clear content.
– Nir Rosen

Comments

123 comments on “It’s Not about Islam & Judaism, It’s About Anti-Colonialism, Territory, Liberation, and Lives

  1. PissedOffAmerican says:

    well, at least Marcus had the brains to morph. But his new personna won’t hold together long either. He’s just too much the slobbering jackass to maintain a masquerade.

    Reply

  2. Sal says:

    Nadine,
    Great points, well said, but don’t waste your time
    on these people. They have their minds made up
    already and aren’t willing to listen.
    Benny Morris’ new book ’1948′ gives a great
    depiction of what happened in the war of
    independence. It seems well researched and balanced.
    He doesn’t describe any ‘systematic’ attacks on
    Palestinian civilians other than the few isolated
    incidents by an independent gang (which was loudly
    criticized by Ben Gurion).

    Reply

  3. nadine says:

    Benny Morris is a right wing hawk?! Well, he does fit the classic definition of a conservative: a liberal who has been mugged. In this case, by I/P reality. Like Shlomo Ben Ami, he saw his recommendations for the solving the conflict tested out in Camp David and Taba and fail miserably, because the what really motivated the Palestinians turned out not be what he thought was motivating them. At all.
    As for his earlier histories, the Seventh Million and all that, Ephraim Karsh has written some rather devastating reviews accusing Morris of cherry picking and twisting documents to fit a pre-conceived thesis. You’d have to be fully read in all the sources yourself to judge, but Morris’ defense of himself sounded rather feeble — and then of course, he practically did a 180 degree change of direction after Oslo failed, which hardly supports the soundness of his earlier conclusions.
    “The historical facts simply don’t support your fantasies that the Palestinians had and have a monopoly on barbary ”
    Nobody has claimed they had a monopoly of barbarity, only a preponderence (to their own people as well as to the Jews). Given a variety of possible strategies, the Palestinians first chose the destruction of Israel via Arab military conquest. When this failed, they chose terrorism against civilians as their main strategy. They have spent literally eighty years refusing a long list of offered compromise solutions, while never proposing one of their one, because compromise is fundamentally unacceptable to them. That much is balanced history.
    Another group in a similar spot would be forced to compromise out of weakness, but the Palestinians have all kinds of global support — as long as they don’t settle. If they settle, most of the support vanishes overnight.

    Reply

  4. Paul Norheim says:

    Sal, this is what you just said to me above:
    “If you think that my depiction of history demonizes the
    Palestinians then perhaps that’s because they have
    acted like barbarians.”
    This simplistic description is of course a perfect example of
    being biased – even a parody. If you take the time to read the
    most prominent and respected Israeli historians (even current
    right wing hawks like Benny Morris) describing how Israel was
    established and what followed, you’ll see that cruel acts were
    committed by Israelis as well, systematically. And it continues to
    this day. The historical facts simply don’t support your fantasies
    that the Palestinians had and have a monopoly on barbary – a
    claim you present as a “balanced view”.
    What is embarrassing when we read your posts is that you again
    and again commit intellectual suicide, as if you were a cat with
    nine brains.

    Reply

  5. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “POA and …, you guys have confirmed my suspicions; you have no clue what you’re talking about so all you can do is throw around petty insults.You can’t rebut my points, so you insult me. The bells ringing I think it’s time for you to go back to class”
    What “points”???
    Oh, you must mean your pat and timeworn “talking points”, eh, jackass?
    You haven’t brought anything to the debate, you’ve just blathered by rote the same shit we’ve been reading for years now.
    And your asinine attempt to turn this into a left versus right issue is too fuckin’ ignorant to even take to the classroom you sarcastically consign us to. Are you actually advancing the premise that the Democrats are anti-Israel???
    You haven’t earned anything but insults.

    Reply

  6. Sal says:

    POA and …, you guys have confirmed my suspicions;
    you have no clue what you’re talking about so all
    you can do is throw around petty insults.You can’t
    rebut my points, so you insult me.
    The bells ringing I think it’s time for you to go
    back to class.

    Reply

  7. ... says:

    sal – i like how you suggest you are 1) – offering facts, and 2) how anyone who wants to challenge you is incapable of challenging 1) properly… what happens when a person like yourself is offering fabrications and lies, much like what was offered in the run up to the war in iraq? some of us learned a few things in that, but perhaps not you… many will not bother to challenge your ‘facts’ as they are seen for the thin veneer they are, with the more obvious reasons for your postings here standing out in strong relief…

    Reply

  8. PissedOffAmerrican says:

    “I’m not trying to insult anyone’s intelligence……blahblahblah….”
    Good. Because your shallow and pat bullshit demonstrates that you are incapable of doing so.

    Reply

  9. Sal says:

    POA,
    Creating Peace Now is an act of self-defense? Wow,
    so defending yourself from an enemy who fires
    thousands of rockets at you and publicly admits to
    wanting to destroy you is unacceptable?
    That’s completely ridiculous. This philosophy simply
    means you think Israel should commit suicide. Not
    going to happen buddy.

    Reply

  10. Sal says:

    For the person who goes by “…”, why don’t you
    rebuke my points one by one is they’re “off the
    rails”?
    It seems that the typical defense of the
    palestinian/muslim cause is to insult anyone with a
    different opinion without providing any facts. I
    guess when the facts don’t support your cause you
    just resort to ad hominem attacks or disrupt speachs
    (like when ambassador Oren spoke at UCLA). Great
    strategy people.

    Reply

  11. Sal says:

    Paul,
    If a writer presents only one side of the story,
    is it not balanced to highlight the other side?
    I’m not trying to insult anyone’s intelligence,
    i’m portraying the situation as I see it. If you
    think that my depiction of history demonizes the
    Palestinians then perhaps that’s because they have
    acted like barbarians.
    The left wing supports the Palestinians because
    they consider them the disenfranchised, but they
    don’t care that their predicament is largely of
    their own making, nor that they’re a society
    embroiled in dictatorship, intolerance and
    religious fanaticism.
    Israel is an example of turning the desert into an
    oasis. The muslim world is an example of taking 3
    steps backward for every step forward. A sad
    reality that i’m sure you will blame others for.

    Reply

  12. ... says:

    lip service only is likely all we’ll get…if we get that….

    Reply

  13. Paul Norheim says:

    “Please name one Israeli act of self-defense that you ever
    approved of.”
    I would be happy to do so, if you admitted that the Palestinians
    too have the right of self defense. If not, I feel no obligation -
    until I visit Israel and the officials at the border perhaps may want
    to ask me a couple of questions.
    For several reasons, Israel is among the countries I really want to
    visit before I die, despite the tragic conflict.

    Reply

  14. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Please name one Israeli act of self-defense that you ever approved of”
    Well, speaking for myself, and common sense, if we can be strict about the expression “Israeli act of self-defense”, I would say it was the creation of groups such as “Peace Now”. For they recognize that current Israeli policies are self-destructive, and may well spell the demise of Israel. (As they should, if Israel continues on its murderous and criminal path. Israel’s behaviour is causing THIS non-Muslim to begin to question its “right to exist”. Did Nazi Germany have a “right to exist”?)

    Reply

  15. nadine says:

    ” like most people here. I support the
    Palestinians in this conflict- while also recognizing Israel’s right
    to exist as a state and defend itself. ” (Paul Norheim)
    Please name one Israeli act of self-defense that you ever approved of.

    Reply

  16. ... says:

    sal, you went off the rails beginning at #1, but by the time you made it to #6 all of your previous comments were made a mockery of… stick to defending israel as best you can, but stay away from outright lying as it is the very worst form of defense and offense..

    Reply

  17. Carroll says:

    Posted by nadine, Mar 06 2010, 8:30PM – Link
    “If they are using the protocals looks like they are vilifying the Jews of Israel in particular, not all infidels.” (Carroll)
    Well, that’s something. I thought you might defend the Protocols as true, which would be consistent with your idea that if people hate Jews, Jews must deserve to be hated.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Look, you truely do have a understanding problem steming from zionism thinking or something.
    You used the example of the protocals to show Muslims vilify infidels.
    You didn’t give any example of using crosses or any other materials along side it to vilify all/other infidels.
    So I logically say that by displaying the protocols their aim is to vilify the Jews of Israel ‘in particular’, not all infidels.
    So that means I believe the protocals are true.
    Then I say obviously they do that because they don’t like you for what you have done in Palestine and Gaza and Lebanon.
    Which is a no brainer observation.
    So I hate Jews, (again) and think they deserve anything they get (again).
    What I actually think is you and the other knee jerk fellow anti semite hysterics here who are incapable of admiting to the possibility that Jews are/have been capable of provoking others to hate them for whatever reasons, like what they are doing right now in I-P, are irrational, dishonest or brainwashed.
    Now I am sure you will come back with that means I think the Jews deserved the holocaust.
    I’am not even going to make fun of you anymore because I seriously think you are having a mental and emotional meltdown trying to defend your zionism beliefs against the majority on here who don’t agree with you and I am not going to contribute to your self damaging anger because it’s gotten and would be cruel and pointless.
    Now you can take that as an insult or you can take it exactly as I mean it.

    Reply

  18. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Let’s see, how about the fact that
    they’re enriching uranium, don’t want to let
    inspectors visit and repeatedly claim they will
    ‘wipe Israel off the map’”
    Why does someone think that lies buttress their own argument? Are they too fuckin’ stupid to realize that if a premise requires lies to defend it, it ain’t worth defending?

    Reply

  19. Paul Norheim says:

    OK Nadine, I’ll make an exception and respond, because your
    general argument is valid: “You cannot say a priori that it is
    ‘unbalanced’ to judge for one side.”
    On a strictly general level this is of course true. But the Israel-
    Palestine conflict is much more complex then you’ll ever be
    willing to admit. Plenty of crimes have been committed through
    the decades on both sides – terrorism against civilians included.
    And in this conflict, Israel is actually the Goliath, pretending, or
    perhaps believing to be the David.
    Personally I am biased, like most people here. I support the
    Palestinians in this conflict- while also recognizing Israel’s right
    to exist as a state and defend itself.
    But it’s a fact that Israel’s actions have for decades gone far
    beyond the defense of it’s own nation. Unfortunately, Israel is
    the bully in this conflict. To fear a new Holocaust from Hamas,
    Hezbullah, or Iran may be subjectively understandable from a
    certain position, but realistically this fear is absurd.

    Reply

  20. nadine says:

    “It’s not about “name calling”; it’s about a commenter who
    offends our intelligence by attempting to redefine the word
    “balanced” as to include the demonization of the side the
    “biased” person defends.” (Paul Norheim)
    Well, that depends who deserves the blame, doesn’t it? If I say that “Germany was responsible for starting WWII” will you automatically say that I am “demonizing” Germany and being unbalanced in my judgment? Sometimes there is good reason for the judgment to go against one side. You cannot say a priori that it is ‘unbalanced’ to judge for one side.
    You just happen to think that the Palestinians have good reason for their 80 year history of rejecting all available compromise solutions in pursuit of goals which they they variously describe as a) destruction of Israel, b) some better deal, left unspecified by them or c) the “right of return”, which is the current deal-breaker.
    I don’t have to agree. I think the situation is completely unnecessary and has been arranged for the convenience of the Arab regimes, who have greatly benefited from it, at the cost of the Palestinian and Israeli peoples.

    Reply

  21. nadine says:

    “If they are using the protocals looks like they are vilifying the Jews of Israel in particular, not all infidels.” (Carroll)
    Well, that’s something. I thought you might defend the Protocols as true, which would be consistent with your idea that if people hate Jews, Jews must deserve to be hated.
    Rosen claimed that Muslims “don’t vilify infidels.” To disprove this claim, I don’t have to show that Muslims vilify every kind of infidel, or give equal time to vilifying different infidels. No, it is enough to provide one prominent example of Muslims vilifying infidels, which I just did. In fact, I provided three such examples.

    Reply

  22. Thomas L.Sjovall says:

    Mr Rosen reading you post give’s me something to think about. Keep up the good work. I think if the U.S. went to war with IRAN,we would be in for a world of pain.
    I do think Isreal has the right to deffend it’s self.

    Reply

  23. Paul Norheim says:

    Sal,
    my simple point is that placing all the blame on the other side
    does not make you more balanced than the one you accuse of
    being biased. My second point is that we know that you know
    this, so why do you treat your readers as if they are idiots?
    “Paul, yes I believe that placing all the blame on Israel
    is factually incorrect and is one sided.”
    But placing all the blame on the Palestinians is factually correct
    and two, three or four sided, right?
    It’s not about “name calling”; it’s about a commenter who
    offends our intelligence by attempting to redefine the word
    “balanced” as to include the demonization of the side the
    “biased” person defends.
    I guess we’re all more or less biased here, especially on I/P. Why
    don’t you just admit it, instead of pretending to promote
    balance while demonizing the Palestinians? It’s not as if we lack
    voices defending Israel here, if you hadn’t noticed.
    Just spare us the “objective information” pretensions, because
    they aren’t credible.

    Reply

  24. Sal says:

    Paul,
    Yes I believe that placing all the blame on Israel
    is factually incorrect and is one sided. Don’t
    tell me you believe that the Palestinians are
    faultless here.
    Now let me ask you a question; when did I place
    all the blame on the Palestinians?
    I have highlighted all of the mistakes made in the
    article and tried to insert the balance that the
    article lacked.
    It seems to me that most readers here aren’t
    willing to listen to another point of view without
    resorting to name calling.

    Reply

  25. Paul Norheim says:

    Sal said:
    “Mr. Rosen’s article is another example of a one
    sided narrative which places all the blame on
    Israel. When did the Palestinians ever make any real
    gestures for peace? They have only advocated war and
    antisemitism. They and their arab neighbors have
    instigated numerous wars and don’t deserve any
    sympathy in my opinion.”
    Sal, I just want to ask you one simple question:
    Do you somehow believe that placing all the blame on Israel
    qualifies as a “one sided narrative”, while placing all the blame
    on the Palestinians/Muslims/Arabs qualifies as a balanced
    narrative?
    Or did someone ask you to write this nonsense?
    Nevermind. You’re not the first one here writing as if TWN’s
    readers were stupid, and you’ll certainly not be the last one.

    Reply

  26. Sal says:

    I’m sorry this article is so bad and misinforming
    that I have to address his points one by one:
    1. “There is only a 100 year struggle between
    Zionist Jews and Palestinians” – This is clearly
    wrong since it was the Arab states of Egypt,
    Jordan, Syria etc that attacked Israel numerous
    times and wanted to ‘drive the Jews into the sea’.
    These Arab states also forced the ethnic cleansing
    of 700,000 Jews from Muslim countries in the ME
    and N. Africa.
    2. “It’s about Zionist Settlers dispossessing the
    Palestinians” – False. This conflict began even
    before the State of Israel was created. The
    Palestinians never accepted the concept of sharing
    land even though they didn’t own most of this land
    and never had a state of their own. If you look at
    the writings of any of the Palestinian groups they
    call for the destruction of Israel and taking ALL
    the land.
    3. Religion is not a part of this conflict -
    Absolutely false! Hamas & Hezbollah are both
    religious parties (backed by Iran) who seek to
    destroy Israel as a part of their religious
    doctrine. Why would Hezbollah and Iran care about
    Israel, they have no territorial disputes with
    her? It’s only an issue of religion.
    4. Hizballah only wants to defend Lebanon – Why do
    they have the destruction of Israel as part of
    their manifesto then? Also why did they fire
    rockets at civilian targets in Israel then? That
    shows their hatred of Jews.
    5. Muslims do not vilify infidels – What planet do
    you live on? There are countless examples of
    shiites killing sunni and vice versa. Not to
    mention the attacks on christians and other
    “infidels” throughout the ME. How can you consider
    the Taliban, Hamas or Saudi Arabia as not
    extremist.
    6. There is no evidence that Iran wants nuclear
    weapons – Let’s see, how about the fact that
    they’re enriching uranium, don’t want to let
    inspectors visit and repeatedly claim they will
    ‘wipe Israel off the map’. Get real.
    7. There is no such thing as sharia – Tell that to
    the Saudi’s, Iranians, Afghani’s, Paki’s etc.
    While there may be different interpretations of
    those scriptures, nonetheless people use it for
    the purpose of theocracy.
    I think Mr. Rosen your point that the concepts of
    radical Islam are lost on most Muslims is probably
    correct. However there are two things that you
    fail to address; 1. That it is the governments of
    these countries that are indoctrinated in this
    philosophy and they’re the ones who fund terrorist
    organizations and start wars.
    2. Although the large part of the Muslim world are
    not radicals they become sympathizers through the
    propaganda of their clerics and governments. This
    breeds hatred and you can’t deny that there is a
    great deal of anti-semitism in the Muslim world
    (which did not btw begin with the state of
    Israel).

    Reply

  27. PissedOffAmerican says:

    It always amazes me seeing these assholes that refuse to admit to Israeli wrongdoing claiming that critics of Israel only blame Israel. They don’t see the hypocricy of their argument?

    Reply

  28. Sal says:

    Mr. Rosen’s article is another example of a one
    sided narrative which places all the blame on
    Israel. When did the Palestinians ever make any real
    gestures for peace? They have only advocated war and
    antisemitism. They and their arab neighbors have
    instigated numerous wars and don’t deserve any
    sympathy in my opinion. Let them recognize that the
    Jews were here long before there was ever any
    concept of Islam or of Palestine and denounce
    terrorism then there can be a chance for peace.

    Reply

  29. Arun says:

    Quote:
    “The space here does not allow one to analyse the number of such ‘history books’ being taught in Pakistani schools, so I will take a single example in this respect to hit home the point. The Illustrated History of Islam by Abdul Rauf is an example. Published in 1993, it is said to be offered by schools as an ‘important side reading’. The cover is a watercolour painting depicting a Muslim warrior on horseback, wielding a heavy sword against what, I’m sure, are infidels.
    Not surprisingly, the book uncritically uses the usual (and clearly polemical) Arab sources (that started emerging some two to three hundred years after Islamic conquests). Insisting on portraying the religion as a culturally homogenous entity (with all other variations being heretical innovations), the author, it seems, uses a war drum instead of a thoughtful pen to jot down his thoughts.
    Then, as is typical of such history books, the author laments the downfall of the Muslim empire and squarely bases the reasons of this downfall on the theological innovations of Muslims that made them move away from true Islam and indulge in luxurious living and social laxities of the infidels. Of course, the author never touches upon the stark economic and political reasons that can explain the fall of empires in a more rational and thoughtful manner. That would require a pen, instead of the sword he seems to be using here.
    My favourite section of the book is a sub-chapter called ‘The Four Anti-Islam Elements.’ This is what the author writes: “Currently Islam faces grave dangers from the following four elements: Christians, Jews, Hindus and atheists.” In other words, everyone who’s not Muslim is a threat to Islam. ”
    Nadeem F. Paracha in the Dawn of Karachi.
    http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/nadeem-f-paracha-cant-be-us-or-can-it-010

    Reply

  30. Arun says:

    Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa writes about Pakistani schools:
    http://www.dawn.com/weekly/education/archive/061022/education1.htm
    “What is taught in the social sciences faculty in public sector universities is a by-product of years of indoctrination. The manner in which history of the subcontinent is taught at schools bears witness to the fact that the prevalent world view given to the students is that of a world divided between Dar-ul-Harb and Dar-ul-Islam.”
    Perhaps Nir Rosen should have been attending Pakistani schools, and not the mosques.

    Reply

  31. Carroll says:

    Posted by nadine, Mar 05 2010, 8:42PM – Link
    Rosen says Karsh is lying when he says Muslims vilify infidels. Egypt and Syria have made Ramadan TV Series out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The librarian of Alexandria put the Protocols in a lobby display case until an international outcry made him remove it. What is the Protocols, that anti-Semitic Czarist forgery, if not vilification>>>>>>>>>>>>
    If they are using the protocals looks like they are vilifying the Jews of Israel in particular, not all infidels.
    Maybe they don’t like you because of what you’ve done in Palestine and Lebanon and Gaza.
    But you hate them too so it’s a wash.

    Reply

  32. nadine says:

    tgia, It wasn’t a full article, so it’s fair use. But then you would have had to read it to tell, and obviously, you didn’t.
    Carroll, hysteria refutes nothing. Rosen says Karsh is lying when he says Muslims vilify infidels. Egypt and Syria have made Ramadan TV Series out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The librarian of Alexandria put the Protocols in a lobby display case until an international outcry made him remove it. What is the Protocols, that anti-Semitic Czarist forgery, if not vilification? You don’t “refute” true charges by denying them.

    Reply

  33. Carroll says:

    CAPTCHA….it makes ‘everyone’ have to do everything TWICE…most of the time.
    Very annoying…but probably to prevent automatic spamming.

    Reply

  34. thankgodimatheist says:

    Nadine
    Just a reminder.
    Posting a full article as you do, instead of just an excerpt and a link, is copyright violation:
    http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html.
    Additionally it’s widely considered as extreme bad taste.
    N.B: What is it with this CAPTCHA letters? It’s never right?!!!

    Reply

  35. Carroll says:

    Just came back to say that TWN giving space to Rosen to refute the one sided stories we hear from the MSM on I/P is to be commended.
    I take this as a good sign that finally some myths about the I/P conflict are being exposed and will hopefully help the I/P debate stay focused on facts.
    Good for Rosen in showing some indignation over the false reasons used to explain I/P and the inaccurate descriptions of Islam.
    And good for Steve

    Reply

  36. gisele says:

    Brilliant response Nir , As always . Bravo.

    Reply

  37. asyoulike says:

    nadine said:
    “A goy blebt a goy” as the old saying goes.
    I think you meant “A yid iz in golus”. :)

    Reply

  38. Tony C. says:

    Nadine –
    I take you to task for asserting that Rosen “lets loose with one ad
    hominem after another, rather than address the arguments, which
    he appears not to have read”, and you respond to me by asking me
    to show you where Ephraim Karsh characterized the IP conflict as
    “urgent” (as Rosen did)?
    That’s it? You absurdly accuse him of writing a substance-free ad
    hominem attack, then, when pressed, fault him for one qualitative
    inference?
    Excuse me while I take some time to recover from the dissonance.

    Reply

  39. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “I know it’s a blog, but this deviates significantly from the level-headed thoughtfulness typically found here. And the Note must approve of it, given that it’s typical of his style; this I find disappointing”
    Now THERES a substantive rebuttal, eh?
    Other than Nadine’s hasbarabull, it seems Rob’s post is the typical response one gets when strongly criticizing Israel’s crimes and human rights abuses.
    Lies or shallow opinions devoid of knowledge or substance. Take your pick.

    Reply

  40. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “POA, Israeli field hospitals have operating rooms as standard procedure………”
    Yet the one at Erez didn’t. Nor was it easily accessable. Nor have you provided any evidence that Hamas was the reason the hospital was short lived and relatively unattended. Gaza was under heavy bombardment. The idea that the “Palestinian wounded” could make it to Erez is ludicrous, as is the idea of a “field hospital”, under such conditions, not being capable of performing surgeries. But that IS the fact of the matter, as you well know. If you contest that assertion, than provide us with somne evidence that the meager facility was capable of, and staffed for, surgeries. Otherwise, its just more of your usual lying bullshit.

    Reply

  41. Rob L says:

    I’m unclear why the Note finds this invective post informative or productive for debate.
    I know it’s a blog, but this deviates significantly from the level-headed thoughtfulness typically found here. And the Note must approve of it, given that it’s typical of his style; this I find disappointing.

    Reply

  42. sdemetri says:

    “Next, Rabin came to the thinking at the heart of his decision to
    pursue the Oslo process: The Israel-Arab conflict, he said, “was
    always considered to be a political one: a conflict between Arabs
    and Israelis. The fundamentalists are doing their level best to
    turn it into a religious conflict – Muslim against Jew, Islam
    against Judaism. And while a political conflict is possible to solve
    through negotiation and compromise, there are no solutions to a
    theological conflict. Then it is jihad – religious war: their God
    against our God. Were they to win, our conflict would go from
    war to war, and from stalemate to stalemate.”
    Rabin said more or less the same as Rosen as far as the conflict
    not being religious. In contradiction to Karsh’s harsh analysis.
    Interesting. A nationalist zealot ended whatever progress Rabin
    might have made approaching the problem from a secular point
    of view.

    Reply

  43. sdemetri says:

    nadine, buy a copy of Avraham Burg’s book, The Holocaust is Over,
    We must rise from the ashes.
    It might help with your anxieties.

    Reply

  44. thankgodimatheist says:

    in with a checkbook to try to buy it.”
    —————–
    Is this a joke? It must be! Have you heard of the new(Israeli) historians, Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Avi Slaim, Tom Segev, all of whom wrote extensively about the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by a group of people who showed with a plan in mind. Well organised and well armed!..”Yes the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed” wrote Morris! Ilan Pappe’s ” The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” documents the steps and stages of the operations including the numerous massacres carried with the clear objective of emptying the land of its indigenous population. All that took place well BEFORE any Arab army has set a foot in Palestine!

    Reply

  45. thankgodimatheist says:

    Nadine..What are you doing? This is spam..You’re spamming the site! Have some decency if you know what it means..!! You’re leaving no room for discussion or debate…6 long posts in a row of outrageous, despicable propaganda..You have to be so desperate in order to resort to such a vile tactic of inundating this site..This obviously will reflect on you and on the apartheid state that you defend..People are not as stupid as you think..They will read straight through your evil methods…

    Reply

  46. nadine says:

    Interesting account of Yitzchak Rabin’s thinking about Oslo from Israeli diplomat Yehuda Avner, who spoke to Rabin two days before he was assassinated in late 1995. Israel lost the “long shot” bet of peace with Arafat, and the conflict has become a religious one, as Rabin foresaw. Rabin saw 15 years into the future more clearly than that dingbat Nir Rosen can see what is happening today in front of his nose:
    “I met him at his Jerusalem office on Wednesday, 1 November,” Avner writes in The Prime Ministers: An Intimate Narrative of Israeli Leadership, which is being published this month by Toby Press. “My first question was, ‘Why did you shake Yasser Arafat’s hand?’”
    Rabin, in Avner’s account, gave a considered and detailed explanation, which is published here for the first time. It offers a unique insight into Rabin’s thinking and motivations immediately prior to his assassination, and underlines how profoundly Rabin recognized the escalating threat posed by Iranian-spearheaded Islamic fundamentalism to the stability of the region and to the prospects of viable compromise with the Palestinians.
    It also makes telling reading on the eve of new “proximity talks” between Israel and the Palestinians, and at a time when Iran’s growing influence in the region, its threats against Israel and its pursuit of a nuclear weapon are regarded by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu as an existential challenge to the Jewish state.
    Like much of Avner’s book, a narrative woven from his decades at the sides of a succession of prime ministers at some of Israel’s most fateful moments, the conversation is reconstructed from precise notes that he took at the time.
    “Number one,” he recounts Rabin as saying, “Israel is surrounded by two concentric circles. The inner circle is comprised of our immediate neighbors – Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon and, by extension, Saudi Arabia. The outer circle comprises their neighbors – Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya. Virtually all of them are rogue states, and some are going nuclear.
    “Number two,” the prime minister went on, “Iranian-inspired Islamic fundamentalism constitutes a threat to the inner circle no less than it does to Israel. Islamic fundamentalism is striving to destabilize the Gulf Emirates, has already created havoc in Syria, leaving twenty thousand dead, in Algeria, leaving one hundred thousand dead, in Egypt, leaving twenty-two thousand dead, in Jordan, leaving eight thousand dead, in the Horn of Africa – the Sudan and Somalia – leaving fourteen thousand dead, and in Yemen, leaving twelve thousand dead. And now it is gaining influence in theWest Bank and the Gaza Strip.
    “Iran is the banker,” Rabin pointed out, “pouring millions into the West Bank and Gaza in the form of social welfare and health and education programs, so that it can win the hearts of the population and feed religious fanaticism.
    “Thus,” he continued to Avner, “a confluence of interest has arisen between Israel and the inner circle, whose long-term strategic interest is the same as ours: to lessen the destabilizing consequences from the outer circle. At the end of the day,the inner circle recognizes they have less to fear from Israel than from their Muslim neighbors, not least from radicalized Islamic powers going nuclear.”
    Next, Rabin came to the thinking at the heart of his decision to pursue the Oslo process: The Israel-Arab conflict, he said, “was always considered to be a political one: a conflict between Arabs and Israelis. The fundamentalists are doing their level best to turn it into a religious conflict – Muslim against Jew, Islam against Judaism. And while a political conflict is possible to solve through negotiation and compromise, there are no solutions to a theological conflict. Then it is jihad – religious war: their God against our God. Were they to win, our conflict would go from war to war, and from stalemate to stalemate.
    “And that, essentially,” the prime minister summed up to his longtime adviser, “is why I agreed to Oslo and shook hands, albeit reluctantly, with Yasser Arafat. He and his PLO represent the last vestige of secular Palestinian nationalism. We have nobody else to deal with. It is either the PLO or nothing. It is a long shot for a possible settlement, or the certainty of no settlement at all at a time when the radicals are going nuclear.”
    Avner, who presents this episode as an “Endnote” in his book, concludes by writing: “I made full notes of these words, and I had a lot to chew over. Rabin instructed his chief aide, Eitan Haber, to arrange for a second meeting the following Sunday 5 November – but it never took place. The evening before, as Yitzhak Rabin was leaving a Tel Aviv peace rally, he was murdered by a Jewish nationalist zealot.”
    http://www.jpost.com/ArtsAndCulture/Books/Article.aspx?id=170285

    Reply

  47. nadine says:

    “The ongoing
    blockade is collective punishment and a crime against humanity.
    It is unsustainable as well.” (sdemetri)
    The ongoing blockade allows humanitarian supplies…Gazans are cut off but the markets are bustling…how is this different from sanctions anywhere? Against Saddam’s Iraq? against Iran? How else can you possibly limit Hamas’ from achieving the aim it is desperately trying to achieve, which is to import the arms Iran is trying to send it? Hamas doesn’t care about the welfare of its citizens, it is preparing for the next round of war. That’s what the Israeli sea patrols are designed to stop. I ask again, how does letting Hamas freely import Fajr missiles from Iran aid civilians?
    The blockade against as Gaza is quite sustainable, btw. Hamas used to have Arab friends, but they have lost those with the Iranian alliance. After Egypt discovered a massive Hizbullah plot to bomb the Suez Canal, they got serious about cutting off Hamas. Now they are building an Iron Wall (literally, down to the water table), to cut down the tunnel-smuggling. One thing you forget about Gaza, is that one of its borders is with Egypt.
    You can’t handle the reality of a place whose leaders are ideologically committed to war. When Hamas took over in 2006, the borders were open. All Hamas needed to do was not renege on the PA’s treaties with Israel, but their ideology forbade that. Their ideology says that Israel must be destroyed. Allah said so.
    There’s an interesting book just coming out called “Son of Hamas” by Mosab Yousef, the son of one of Hamas’ founders. He broke with the ideology of Hamas and began to cooperate with the Shin Bet, out of conviction that Hamas’ ideology was evil. He was Israel’s highest level spy in Hamas. They called him “the green prince” because of his rank. Mosab Yousef is now a Christian living in California. He can explain to you, if you can hear him, how Hamas’ ideology absolutely forbids peace with Israel on any terms.

    Reply

  48. nadine says:

    “Carroll writes: “This is why btw, it really is ridiculous to argue over who has the most rigth to some piece in the ME.” (Carroll)
    Maybe it’s ridiculous to argue over who has “the most” right, but arguing over who has “some right” is a different matter. At bottom, that’s the argument, IMO. (Sweetness)”
    Everywhere else in the world, the argument is settled by possession. Nobody suggests undoing existing countries, not even basket cases like Zimbabwe, and certainly not successful countries.
    But for Israel, everybody has a rationalization on why possession is not a good rule to go by, which is always some rationalization of the Arab argument that Jewish rule is illegitimate. Anywhere.

    Reply

  49. nadine says:

    POA, Israeli field hospitals have operating rooms as standard procedure, like the one they set up in Port au Prince within three days of the earthquake…it was the first one operating in Haiti. But thanks for the link.
    I like the assumption that it was the job of the Israelis to treat all the casualties of Cast Lead…there are hospitals in Gaza, like Shifa hospital, which Israel did not bomb even though Hamas set up its HQ in the basement, another violation of the laws of war, which if you actually go by the Geneva conventions (which no one does for Hamas) would cause the hospital to lose its protected status under the Forth Geneva Convention.

    Reply

  50. nadine says:

    “That is such an absurdly dishonest characterization of the subject
    article, that I can’t imagine why anyone would bother to read
    anything else that you have written.”
    Show me where Ephraim Karsh characterized the IP conflict as “urgent” as Nir Rosen said.

    Reply

  51. nadine says:

    thankgodimatheist, nobody could buy most of Palestine because over 80% of the land has been owned by the government since Ottoman times. It’s a legacy of Ottoman mismanagement…when the landowners couldn’t pay taxes, the sultan took ownership. So the percentage of Palestine that was owned by non-Jews was perhaps 15%. Now, whose characterization is more “dishonest”?
    My point was that the Zionists did not come in with an army to try to conquer land…they came in with a checkbook to try to buy it. The armies were Arab that tried to wipe them out…not “Palestinian” but Arab. Had the Israelis lost in 1948, there would have been no Palestine created…that UN partition vote you guys like, the Arabs absolutely refused it.

    Reply

  52. thankgodimatheist says:

    That is such an absurdly dishonest characterization of the subject
    article, that I can’t imagine why anyone would bother to read
    anything else that you have written.
    Tony C
    —————-
    It’s a job, Tony, whether paid or not, they approach it as a job ..GYUS fellows are always out and about spreading the same hasbara lines that have been debunked over and over again..Desperate and hopeless.

    Reply

  53. Tony C. says:

    “This seems to upset Nir Rosen to the extent that he lets loose
    with one ad hominem after another, rather than address the
    arguments, which he appears not to have read.”
    Nadine -
    That is such an absurdly dishonest characterization of the subject
    article, that I can’t imagine why anyone would bother to read
    anything else that you have written.

    Reply

  54. thankgodimatheist says:

    “The Jews did not “reclaim” Israel – though they certainly maintained both a presence and a cultural and religious attachment to the land – they baught(sic)it…
    Nadine
    ————-
    ouch!! That’s a classic (and wrong) hasbara line:
    Shlomo Ben-Ami the Israeli historian and ex foreign minister under Ehud Barack author of “Scars of War, Wounds of Peace” answers Amy Goodman’s question:
    “…as a whole, I think that not more than 6 or 7% of the entire surface of the state of Israel was bought”
    Here:
    AMY GOODMAN: And Shlomo Ben-Ami, your response to those who continue to say that at the time of the establishment of the state of Israel and before, that it really was empty, that Jews came to a place that was not populated.
    “SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Of course, it is nonsense. I mean, it was populated. Obviously, it was populated. I mean, the notion that existed, I think it was Israel Zangwill, the first to say that we are — we came a nation without a land to a land without a people. Obviously, it was not true, but again, part of the tragedy was that the Palestinians, as such, did not have — the Palestinian peasants did not have the full control of their own destiny. Part of that land was bought by the Zionist organizations from Affendis, landowners living in Turkey or anywhere else throughout the Ottoman Empire, and these people were inevitably evicted by these kind of transactions. But as a whole, I think that not more than 6 or 7% of the entire surface of the state of Israel was bought. The rest of it was either taken over or won during the war. ”
    http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/democracy-now-debate-with-finkelstein-shlomo-ben-ami/
    ———-
    Time to update your “facts”, Nadine…

    Reply

  55. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Gee, a “field hospital”, to “treat the wounded”, with no operating room. How charitable of the Israelis, eh?
    http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/88569
    Israel opens small field hospital for Gazan patients inside Erez terminal
    Marian HoukJanuary 22, 2009
    The Israeli government opened a small “emergency medical treatment center” on Sunday in the main building of the Erez crossing between Israel and Gaza. A doctor working in the “field hospital” said that three patients had arrived from Gaza on Sunday.
    Many people may not have known about the new “field hospital”, one of the medical personnel at the clinic said, and more are expected in the coming days.
    Haaretz reported here that “Welfare Minister Isaac Herzog, who attended the clinic opening in the Erez crossing pedestrian zone, said the clinic would treat as many people as possible”.
    The maximum capacity is 100 to 150 people a day.
    It is actually set up more like a neighborhood clinic than a field hospital in the war zone that Gaza became during three weeks of a massive military operation that may have ended with two unilateral cease-fires declared separately by Israel and by Hamas on Sunday.
    The clinic does not appear to be prepared to mount a massive rescue operation of critically wounded patients. And it will take a minimum of two to three hours — at a minimum — to process a patient through, once they arrive at the clinic, which is set up in converted office space on the ground floor of the Erez terminal building. There is even a play area for small children.
    The Jerusalem Post has written that “the clinic is a humanitarian gesture by Israel following the 22-day operation in Gaza”.
    Patients would have to be fairly mobile just to get there, and they have to go through an Israeli security check — after passing through a Palestinian security control — before entering the terminal. There does not seem to be an operating room, although there is an emergency resuscitation room with life support machines which were used for one Gazan who had managed to walk in before having a heart attack in the terminal. Another woman was allowed to pass through to Israel to resume her cancer treatment at a Palestinian hospital in East Jerusalem. And a third patient was treated for sinusitis, before choosing to return to Gaza.
    There have also since reportedly been seven children who passed through the treatment center — most of them cancer patients wanting to resume their treatment in Israeli or Palestinian hospitals outside the Gaza Strip.
    Access to the Erez terminal is now strictly controlled by the military at a point about a mile away on the Israeli side. From the Gazan side, it is a nearly two-kilometer walk on earth that is un-even because it is regularly dug up by IDF tank forays. It can be creepily empty at times, and it is occasionally shot at by both sides. Back-to-back ambulance transfers would be difficult, if they are even possible under the current security regulations.
    continues…….

    Reply

  56. PissedOffAmerican says:

    ” Israel set up a field hospital at the Erez Crossing during Cast Lead and offered free care for the sick and wounded”
    While targeting, throughout Gaza, the Red Crescent ambulances that may have served to bring patients to the hospital you allege was “set up”. Considering that the Israeli storm troopers were shooting virtually everything in sight, including people waving white flags, and were dumping an unimaginable amount of bomb tonnage on the streets of Gaza, I suppose your wretched and despicable mindset has you convinced that it was just a simple matter of the wounded Palestinians hailing a cab, or calling for a limo to take them to the Erez Crossing where they would be treated with the most modern medical attention by smiling Israeli doctors.
    You’re despicable, Nadine. Truly loathsome.
    http://ingaza.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/rescuers-targeted-one-year-on/#more-6866

    Reply

  57. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “That’s funny, I can’t find anywhere where Rosen says anything like this…maybe you can find the quote for us?”
    Its obvious that Kathleen was agreeing with and complimenting Rosen’s essay, then injecting her OWN opinion as to what should be done.
    Your condescending “gotcha” was disingenuous at best, and can be more aptly described as, well, stupid.

    Reply

  58. sdemetri says:

    Perhaps this one thing though, nadine:
    You said, ” Israel set up a field hospital at the Erez Crossing
    during Cast Lead and offered free care for the sick and
    wounded. Hamas didn’t permit a single patient to get care, and
    the hospital closed after a couple of weeks.
    Didn’t hear about that, did you?”
    I’m not sure you heard about that either. How do you know
    Hamas didn’t permit a single patient to get care? Was someone
    standing by the crossing taking a poll? Or, do you infer that
    from the hospital closing after two weeks with no takers? How
    do you know that? Anyone anywhere near that crossing that
    looked the least bit like Hamas I’m sure was very, very lucky to
    live to see another day. I’m sure they were not giving interviews.
    So, how do you know that with any certainty at all? If certainty
    matters.

    Reply

  59. sdemetri says:

    “Israel is not obligated to take thousands of missiles from Gaza
    without responding.” (nadine)
    The cease fire held through most of the summer until Nov 4 and
    the IDF operation into Gaza on the pretext of a tunnel and
    kidnapping plan. How they knew about a kidnapping plan is
    beyond me, spies within Gaza, perhaps. Those killed on Nov 4
    by the IDF (supposedly preempting a plan which conveniently no
    one outside of the IDF can prove actually existed), signified a
    break in the cease fire. The cease fire had held up until that
    time. Hamas put the lid on their own and other militant groups
    firing rockets and IDF records record that virtually no rockets
    were fired from Gaza in the months before Nov 4.
    Regarding the field hospital. It is just as likely that civilians were
    too terrified to approach the crossing for fear of being shot for
    trying to escape. And given the evidence from within Gaza of
    who and what were being targeted, that is the much more likely
    explanation.
    The ongoing blockade is not a direct action against “terrorists
    out of uniform use[ing] civilians as human shields.” It is a
    blockade of a population of 1.5 million people, a small
    percentage of whom even by the most conservative estimations
    are “combatants,” or, as you say, “terrorists.” The ongoing
    blockade is collective punishment and a crime against humanity.
    It is unsustainable as well.
    I don’t have much else to say to you.

    Reply

  60. Sweetness says:

    KGA writes: “Damned straight, Mr. Rosen..thank you..Israel needs to be told to repsect the 1967 borders or forgo further US aid.”
    That’s funny, I can’t find anywhere where Rosen says anything like this…maybe you can find the quote for us?

    Reply

  61. Sweetness says:

    KGA writes: “Damned straight, Mr. Rosen..thank you..Israel needs to be told to repsect the 1967 borders or forgo further US aid.”
    That’s funny, I can’t find anywhere where Rosen says anything like this…maybe you can find the quote for us?

    Reply

  62. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    Damned straight, Mr. Rosen..thank you..Israel needs to be told to repsect the 1967 borders or forgo further US aid.

    Reply

  63. Sweetness says:

    Carroll writes: “This is why btw, it really is ridiculous to argue over who has the most rigth to some piece in the ME.”
    Maybe it’s ridiculous to argue over who has “the most” right, but arguing over who has “some right” is a different matter. At bottom, that’s the argument, IMO.

    Reply

  64. Carroll says:

    O.K…..
    I have found the first, most ancient and original inhabitants of the ME.
    It’s the Neandertals!
    Does this mean we should look for some Neandertals to give the land back to?
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0305_0307_neandertal.html
    Did Humans and Neandertals Battle for Control of the Middle East?
    Thousands of years before Christians, Muslims, and Jews became locked in dispute over the Middle East, humans wrested control of the region from its true original inhabitants, the Neandertals.
    The Neandertals, stocky and intelligent humanoids, lived in Europe and Western Asia for thousands of years before the first humans settled in the area. Then true humans moved into the region from Africa.
    The new arrivals settled the land, and the resident Neandertals eventually died out or moved on as the humans continued to spread outward. By 30,000 years ago, humans had occupied most of the Old World, and Neandertals had disappeared from the globe.
    Their analysis focused on two archaeological sites in Israel, called Skhul (pronounced “school”) and Kafzeh. Archaeological evidence excavated at the sites years ago indicated that people had lived in the caves, at least occasionally, for more than 130,000 years.
    Most remarkable about the finds was the discovery that the caves had changed hands between Neandertals and modern humans no fewer than three times.
    In the upper layers of the dirt floors in both caves, archaeologists found bones of humans. Lower down, in layers that were deposited between 47,000 to 65,000 years ago, human bones were absent, but researchers excavated Neandertal remains. That discovery corresponds to a period of Neandertal occupation of the site that lasted nearly 20,000 years.
    To the researchers’ surprise, however, they uncovered more human remains beneath those of the Neandertals in both caves. These ancient bones dated to an era that stretched from 80,000 to 130,000 years ago. From the deepest layers of dirt beneath the cave floors, which accumulated more than 130,000 years ago, they again found Neandertal bones.
    The finding indicated that Skhul and Kafzeh—and, presumably, much or all of the surrounding region—passed from human hands back into Neandertal control between 65,000 and 80,000 years ago.
    Humans were apparently unsuccessful in their first bid to take over the region’>>>>>>>>>
    NatGeo had a program several years ago where they would use your DNA to identify what group of pre modern humanoids you were descended from. Like
    hunters or gathers, Asia pre humanoids or African, European and etc..
    I don’t know if they are still doing it but if they are you can send them a lock of hair to determine DNA and who knows you might turn out to be descended from the Neandertals and have a claim to the ME too.
    This is why btw, it really is ridiculous to argue over who has the most rigth to some piece in the ME.

    Reply

  65. nadine says:

    And the description of Palestine as backward and barren and useless in 1947 is also not correct. A post I made some time back, a report from Truman’s presidential library to Truman by an adm official who traveled thru the ME and to Palestine prior to the Israel question even being raised, described Palestine as a thriving highly cultivated farming and trade community, not the poor and backward place nadine and others say it was.
    1947 Palestine had the benefit of 70 years of Zionist development. It had modern medicine, running water, sewers, electricity. It had built new cities like Tel Aviv. It was a far cry from Ottoman Palestine in 1880.

    Reply

  66. nadine says:

    “I happen to think the continued blockade of Gaza is in fact
    resulting in deaths among the populace there, mostly of the sick
    and wounded from Cast Lead, the old, and children, and is by
    definition collective punishment, a crime against humanity. ” (sdemetri)
    Israel set up a field hospital at the Erez Crossing during Cast Lead and offered free care for the sick and wounded. Hamas didn’t permit a single patient to get care, and the hospital closed after a couple of weeks.
    Didn’t hear about that, did you?
    Israel is not obligated to take thousands of missiles from Gaza without responding.
    Nowhere in the Geneva Conventions does it say that if terrorists out of uniform use civilians as a human shields (Hamas not only did this, but boasted of it), they get to attack with impunity. In fact, the Fourth Geneva Convention calls this “perfidy” and puts the onus for dead civilians on the terrorists, as long as the attacking forces do the best they can not to kill civilians.
    But then, the authors of the Geneva Conventions understood what today’s left does not: if you set up the system to reward terrorists, you get MORE dead civilians, not fewer. Do you think that letting Hamas freely import long-range Fajr missile from Iran will lead to fewer dead civilians in the long run?

    Reply

  67. Carroll says:

    Posted by MarkL, Mar 04 2010, 3:59PM -
    >>>>>>>>>
    Mark…I found that census in the British National Archives documents. It was done in 1935 during the British Palestine mandate..so whatever the boundaries of the Palestine mandate were at the time I guess were used in doing the census.
    I like to see a map of it out of curiosity ..I’ll look around.
    One thing I did see in the UN documents about Israel was that when they parceled out a portion of Palestine for Israel they looked at where the jewish communities where within Palestine at that time and then expanded the land around them to create Israel.

    Reply

  68. Sweetness says:

    Birnbaum writes: “This kind of 60s rhetoric about “colonialism” is
    no more relevant to resolving the conflict between Israel and the
    Palestinians at this point than the religious rhetoric being
    criticized. Here’s the reality: The Israelis don’t plan on going
    anywhere and the Palestinians need a state. Either a deal can be
    struck out of those two requirements, or it can’t.”
    I’d have to agree, at least on practical grounds. The case that
    the founding of Israel was “colonialism” has been made by many
    people, including the founders. But I think it’s a weak one. Call
    it colonialism, if you want, but it’s unlike virtually any other form
    of colonialism that I’m aware of.
    And calling Israel a colonialist state is no more accurate, really,
    than calling the US or Australia colonialist states. Many
    generations of Israelis have been born and raised in Israeli
    speaking the native tongue, Hebrew.

    Reply

  69. MarkL says:

    Carroll,
    It’s a long time since I looked at old census figures, but of course there was not a majority of Jews in Palestine before Zionism.
    When discussing population figures, it does help to explain what the boundaries of that historical census were, and how that compares with modern boundaries.

    Reply

  70. sdemetri says:

    nadine, you know little or nothing about me. I don’t comment
    here often.
    This statement distills your position:
    “If you try this [critical analysis of their political positions and
    actions in Tibet] with the Chinese, they’ll just tell you to go
    pound sand.”
    I happen to think the continued blockade of Gaza is in fact
    resulting in deaths among the populace there, mostly of the sick
    and wounded from Cast Lead, the old, and children, and is by
    definition collective punishment, a crime against humanity. (Not
    in substance though perhaps in scale much different than
    Chinese soldiers targeting and killing Tibetan nuns trying to
    traverse high passes out of the country.) You will now tell me to
    go pound sand for saying so.
    How are your statements any different than what you claim the
    Chinese would do?
    And for the record, I loathe what the Israeli government is doing
    with regards to the Palestinians. And I have Jewish friends that
    don’t consider me anti-semitic for being critical of the actions
    of the government of Israel. It is not about the people, it is
    about the policies.

    Reply

  71. Carroll says:

    Posted by DonS, Mar 04 2010, 7:39AM – Link
    Carroll, your understanding of Zionism, and its nationalist roots is correct. Nadines’ version is incorrect. A religion does not constitute an entity for the purpose of national/political claims.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Thanks, I thought I was at least half way correct in my understanding.
    From what I have studied on Israel and I/P, Israel was the result of a small group of Jews in the 1800′s like Herzl who wanted Jews to have a ‘nation’ of their own and that their idea became reality because of the holocaust.
    And then came the justification claims for taking Palestine in particular to create Israel because Jews once lived there and it actually ‘belongs’ to the Jews based on their past and the bible and religion and all the rest.
    I don’t know if Jews were the majority in the town of Jeursalem but the British census in 1935 said there were 28,000 Jews in Palestine, 50,000 some Christians and 600,000 some Muslim Arabs.
    And the description of Palestine as backward and barren and useless in 1947 is also not correct. A post I made some time back, a report from Truman’s presidential library to Truman by an adm official who traveled thru the ME and to Palestine prior to the Israel question even being raised, described Palestine as a thriving highly cultivated farming and trade community, not the poor and backward place nadine and others say it was.
    But you can’t argue with crazy. And anyway none of it justifies what has happened and is going on today in I/P.

    Reply

  72. DonS says:

    Nadine, I said nothing about the definition of Jews (except to agree with you: identity, culture and of course religion); that’s the crux. Zionism does not equal Judaism. Zionism is a political movement. That’s my understanding of what Carroll said too.

    Reply

  73. ... says:

    nadine – the words of a person incapable of self reflection or analysis….

    Reply

  74. nadine says:

    rulla, I pity the Palestinians. They have a large well educated population and diaspora which could have made Palestine prosperous years ago if their leadership had ever allowed it to happen.
    Did you know that when Arafat returned to Gaza in 1994, Hilton approached him about developing a resort there? Gaza has beautiful beaches. Arafat demanded ten million in cash up front, and Hilton got the idea that Gaza under Arafat would not be a good location for business development.
    If the Palestinian leadership had been otherwise, Gaza today could be a bigger resort than Sharm el Sheik. It could get a million Israeli visitors every year, and as many Europeans. It could be wealthy. It didn’t have to be like this. Arafat and Hamas chose the path of deception and jihad. Not Israel.
    This fight is not about an acre here or an acre there, or about some Jew in East Jerusalem adding a room to his house. These are just useful excuses. No, the fight is about whether the leadership of the Palestinians can ever say the words: Palestine is an Arab state next to the Jewish state of Israel. We have settled the conflict.
    If they can’t say this, the reason is not nationalist but religious. A secular national movement could say this — why not? Wouldn’t a secular national movement WANT a state, even if they had to make compromises? But Islamists can never say it. It is contrary to the will of Allah.

    Reply

  75. nadine says:

    “”…or the Chinese in Tibet.” That is not defendable. You don’t speak
    for today’s left.” (sdemetri)
    Oh yeah? So how come the outrage poured out daily over the Palestinians is 100 times the occasional tut-tut we hear about the Tibetans?
    I’ll tell you why. The Israelis make perfect targets. They are a small country so they are safe to attack. They care about legality and morality so they react to the charges. You appease a large oil-rich part of the world by attacking them. The Tibetans don’t go around killing or bombing anybody (their mistake I suppose). And by the way, the Israelis are Jews, so you didn’t like them to begin with.
    If you try this with the Chinese, they’ll just tell you to go pound sand. They could care less about morality.

    Reply

  76. Historyscoper says:

    When it comes to the “Palestinian conflict”, what
    Muslims don’t tell you is that there is no such
    thing as a Palestinian people, they’re just Arabs
    who are part of a pan-Arab movement in history that
    started out by taking all their territory by force,
    and still believe that Allah gave it to them and
    nobody else can have it. The Jews, on the other
    hand, lived there long before they took it in the
    7th cent. Study Islam’s history all the way back
    free online with the Historyscoper and arm your mind
    with the knowledge to better understand current
    affairs at http://go.to/islamhistory

    Reply

  77. rulla says:

    Mr. Rosen,
    It was a pleasure reading your article. I wish there were more of
    you and less of the likes of nadine.
    nadine, you have a lot of hate and venom in your heart. Intense
    therapy coupled with education (and I don’t mean Fox) will do
    wonders for your heart and mind. I suggest you look into it for
    your sake and ours.
    A Palestinian

    Reply

  78. ... says:

    nadine – not able to dispute dons comments, tries to negate them a different way!!! is this the comedy channel?

    Reply

  79. Josh M. says:

    Mr. Rosen — awesome essay. Spot on.
    Steve, thanks for posting this.

    Reply

  80. sdemetri says:

    “… no matter how peacefully they tried to do it.” That’s debatable.
    “…or the Chinese in Tibet.” That is not defendable. You don’t speak
    for today’s left.

    Reply

  81. nadine says:

    DonS, do you really want to hang out there saying that an avowed anti-Semite has the correct definition of Jews, as opposed to the one the Jews use for themselves?

    Reply

  82. nadine says:

    “National identities and national homelands have been highly fluid over time, and almost every patch of ground on Earth belonged to someone else — usually several “someone elses” — over history, and most of the time the previous owners lost it involuntarily. The path of recognizing millenia-old territorial claims leads to madness.”
    The Jews did not “reclaim” Israel – though they certainly maintained both a presence (Jerusalem has had a Jewish plurality or majority for centuries) and a cultural and religious attachment to the land – they bought in. They bought land, at high prices, considered worthless by its owners, who were delighted to sell. They did not come in and conquer. They moved into a region that was underpopulated, long mismanaged, and under the dying political control of the Ottomans, which then became a British mandate. At the time, it literally didn’t occur to anyone that having Jews set up shop in a underpopulated backwater of southern Syria that was one-tenth of one percent of the landmass of the Muslim Mideast would become a permanent Arab cause celebre.
    What you say about people moving and land being taken over is quite true. But you draw the usual corollary of today’s left: for the Jews alone, it is illegal, no matter how peacefully they tried to do it. For everybody else, e.g. the Turks vs. Armenians and Greeks, or the Chinese in Tibet, it’s just the way the cookie crumbles, no matter how many people they killed.

    Reply

  83. samuelburke says:

    so can everyone tell by the comments who belongs to the axis of hatred (evil) club?
    drink haterade its cool and refreshing.
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north820.html
    “In his book, The Right Man: The Surprising Presidency of George W. Bush, Frum wrote that the head speech writer had given him the task of inserting a few words justifying a war on Iraq. He wrote “axis of hatred,” but the head speech writer changed this to “axis of evil.”

    Reply

  84. anirprof says:

    Nadine,
    The argument that Israel belongs to the Jews, that it was merely occupied by outside powers for about 1800 years, and that therefore Jews retaking Israel can not be considered colonization runs totally against all our traditions of international law and just plain common sense.
    In AD 70, virtually none of the “nations” we recognize in Europe today even saw themselves as the nationalities we know today, and certainly didn’t live where they do now. Hungarians (“Magyars”) didn’t arrive in Hungary until after 1000 AD, the Saxons not in England until after 1066, the Turks even later, the Germans were in Europe but generally lived farther east than what is now Germany, etc, etc, and etc. Not to mention the whole issue of the Americas.
    The analogous situation would be if tomorrow, the Irish landed on the shores of England and kicked out the English, saying that their real home was France and Germany anyway, since the British Isles had belonged to the Celts before the Romans showed up and started messing everything up. Surely you’re not arguing that would be valid?
    National identities and national homelands have been highly fluid over time, and almost every patch of ground on Earth belonged to someone else — usually several “someone elses” — over history, and most of the time the previous owners lost it involuntarily. The path of recognizing millenia-old territorial claims leads to madness.

    Reply

  85. sdemetri says:

    It seems forgotten by folks like nadine that palestinians and jews
    lived together peacefully for many, many years prior to the west’s
    project to grant the zionists their “right of return” as some view it
    (a project with very heavy religious overtones). There was not a
    priori hatred/violence/theft of land by colonization and settlement
    in that more peaceful time. It was the dispossession and disruption
    of that peace in service to the project that sparked hostilities.

    Reply

  86. DonS says:

    “an identity and a culture”. And a religion.
    Fine, Nadine. But not a nation. Get it? Not by historical precedent. By UN mandate. Limited borders. Not Judea and Samaria. 242. Get it?

    Reply

  87. DonS says:

    Carroll, your understanding of Zionism, and its nationalist roots is correct. Nadines’ version is incorrect. A religion does not constitute an entity for the purpose of national/political claims. Zionists use the religion of Judaism to leverage their claims when convenient. A religion is not a “people” no matter how many times the Zionist’s make the claim; of course they claim to be terminally unique as well. You can’t win.

    Reply

  88. Greydog says:

    Nir Rosen and Dahr Jamail are the most reputable and respected
    journalists on this subject. If it weren’t for them, we would be in
    the dark re: Iraq, Afghanistan and all things ME. Thanks to both
    for excellent work.

    Reply

  89. samuelburke says:

    that little war monger in obamas admin Hilari Clinton seems to
    be abroad in Latin America with her war paint on vying for
    support for sanctions against Iran.
    the united states like israel is trying to bring the world to the
    brink.
    “(CNN) — Brazil “will not bend” to U.S. pressure to seek
    sanctions against Iran, Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim
    said after a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
    in Brasilia.
    The United States was seeking support for sanctions against
    Iran, which it accuses of harboring a non-peaceful nuclear
    program. Brazil shares the table with the United States on the
    United Nations Security Council, where it holds a non-veto seat.
    “We think with our own mind. We want a world without nuclear
    arms, certainly without proliferation,” Amorim said at a news
    conference with Clinton on Wednesday, according to the official
    Agencia Brasil news agency. “It is not about simply bending to
    an opinion that may not be true. We can’t simply be taken
    along. We have to think with our own head.”
    During her remarks, Clinton reiterated the case for new
    sanctions, saying that Iran is not likely to engage in negotiations
    over its nuclear program until after sanctions are in place.”

    Reply

  90. nadine says:

    Carroll, I know you don’t know much geography, but perhaps you have heard the term “Arabia”? It’s where Arabs come from. It’s not in Palestine, which only became “Palestine”, after the Romans changed its name in the 2nd century CE from “Judea,” the previous name. Judea, Jews, get it?
    The Arabs showed up in Palestine when the Muslim conquest happened in the 7th century. Perhaps you have heard of that? They joined the Greeks and the Jews who were there already. By then it wasn’t Palestine anymore, but Syria. The Arabs never used the name Palestine. Not then, not later. If you showed up a hundred years ago and asked “the Palestinian people” as Nir Rosen calls them, what country they lived in, they would have told you: Syria.
    Not that you care. You just want excuses to hate Jews and to declare that whatever would entitle them to have a home, an identity, or a culture — they’re not entitled. No, anybody else on the scene, he is entitled, but not the Jews. “A goy blebt a goy” as the old saying goes.

    Reply

  91. Carroll says:

    This really isn’t germain to Rosens article but since the religious question in I/P was raised and mostly debunked as factor in occupying Palestine…but Jewishness being central to the cause of Israel and zionism I thought I would spend some time trying to get to the facts of what constitutes the Jews as a ‘distinct’ people.
    And I am going backwards with the facts to get to the beginning.
    Evidently up to 1982 the Jews in the US were considered a separate race…probably so they could come under the protection of racial discrimination laws since they were a minority.
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=481&invol=615
    2. Jews can state a 1982 claim of racial discrimination since they were among the peoples considered to be distinct races and hence within the protection of the statute at the time it was passed. They are not foreclosed from stating a cause of action simply because the defendants are also part of what today is considered the Caucasian race. Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, ante, p. 604. Pp. 617-618.
    Then in Europe who was a Jew was based on DNA, having a jewish mother.
    http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishFeatures/Article.aspx?id=168205
    UK Jews weigh fight after court ruling on ‘Who is a Jew’
    That question has bitterly divided the Jewish community in Britain following the Supreme Court ruling a month-and-a-half ago striking down a Jewish school’s policy of limiting admission to the children of Jewish mothers.
    But then in Israel religion was a factor despite heritage. Or maybe you had to have both religion and DNA. Or religion trumps DNA.
    Daniel Rufeisen was born Jewish, of two Jewish parents. Because of the nazi persecutions, his parents hid him with a couple who were Catholic. But, they raised him as a Catholic, and he became a Catholic priest. Father Daniel, aware of his parents’ heritage, went to Israel and applied to become a citizen of Israel under the Law of Return. The Israeli Supreme Court denied his application, stating that, since he converted, he was no longer a Jew.
    The encyclopedia of Anthropology says among other things that language and religion define Semites, which the original Jews were.
    Semites Assyrians and babylonians and others who lived round the ancient Fertile Crescent, and their modern descendants, both Jews and Muslims. The name is derived from Shem (son of Noah, Gen. 6: 10). (In modern parlance, since the late 19th cent., including NT scholarship, the term ‘antisemitic’ is used more restrictively to describe opposition to Judaism.) Groups of languages spoken by peoples of that region are known as Semitic, Hebrew being just one.
    Arabs and many Jews are of the same ethnic family, the Semites. Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic languages.
    Then, in looking up non Semitic or not pure semitic Jews such as Asians I found that Judaism and colonies of Jews were established around the world by Jews migrating from the ME, intermarrying and practicing Judaism. Which accounts for the varied races of Jews.
    Obviously the Jews were one of many “tribes” in the ME. They were a minority tribe in the ME who spoke Hebrew and practiced Judaism while most other indigenous tribes spoke Arabic and practiced Islam. Most of the Hebrew tribe left the ME and most of the Arabic tribes stayed in the ME.
    So actually the Jews are/were a “Tribe” of people, not a nation of people, within a land who shared a language and religion.
    As the Islamic Arabs were a ‘tribe” who shared a langauge and religion.
    But if we accept the Jews are a “people” or as now put forth, a nation of people, then the Arabs are a people and nation of people.
    And since the Palestians are of the Arab tribes and never actually left the land aren’t they actually a ‘Nation of People’ by virture of religion and langauage if we go by the Jewish definition.
    And of course this does nothing to explain why nadine and zionist base their claim to Israel in part on being a “distinct” people when any group sharing some commonality and separateness from another group of people would also be called distinct. The major ‘distincton’ in claims in I/P
    would seem to me to be that one tribe left and one tribe stayed and then the tribe that left decided they wanted to move back in and take the land of the tribe who had stayed.

    Reply

  92. stamboul says:

    Awesome, awesome article. This should be required reading for anyone before they comment on the Middle East or Islamic issues. I hope the NYT prints it. Nir Rosen is a legend.

    Reply

  93. Carroll says:

    Posted by nadine, Mar 04 2010, 1:21AM – Link
    I don’t need to call you any names, Carroll. You have already demonstrated that you are an anti-Semite numerous times. Shall I repost your post citing the Nazi-sympathizer-forged George Washington quote about how loathsome the Jews are again?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Feel free to post those quotes anytime. In fact out of curiosity and because it disturbs you so much, when I have more free time, I will do some research as I did on Truman to see if they are legitimate or forged by nazi sympathizers as you say.
    However I am thinking if any of them are legitimate they were most likely inspired by individuals like yourself..which would be understandable.
    As Hillary would say..you are “not helpful” to your cause. LOL

    Reply

  94. Carroll says:

    I forgot to ask nadine about this….
    “It’s not convoluted at all. Jews are a distinct people (the Hebrew word “Am” means nation or people”
    1)What exactly makes the Jews a ‘distinct’ people?
    Since you say varied races nor ethnics of Jews is considered..although I have seen many zionist claim the opposite… then it must be religion that makes them a distinct people and evidently encompasses Jews in all other countries of the world….correct?
    So when zionist say the ‘jews are a nation of people’…which was how the zionist founder described them long before Israel was created 1947 ….they mean a nation of people is based on their religion?
    And yes I am confused about your French “nation” comparison.
    France is a nation of people with varied races and religions.
    There is no “French religion” that drew people to live in France or create a Nation of Frenchies.
    It’s bizarre in Western civilization to consider religious members scattered around the world as constituting a actual “Nation”, having or entitled to their own country.
    It would be more comparable to Eastern civilizations of Islamic nations….which aren’t considered “democracies” by the West.

    Reply

  95. nadine says:

    I don’t need to call you any names, Carroll. You have already demonstrated that you are an anti-Semite numerous times. Shall I repost your post citing the Nazi-sympathizer-forged George Washington quote about how loathsome the Jews are again?

    Reply

  96. ... says:

    thanks to steve for sharing with us this post of nir rosen and to nir for writing it…
    at what point do ordinary americans wake up and realize the new york times and the washington post are the propaganda outlets for a country run amok? how long do we have to wait? how many more wars have to be started or supported from these same propaganda outlets?
    nadine quote “Race and nation are not the same thing.” tell that to your zionist friends while you’re at it… neither they or you seem to get it…

    Reply

  97. Doc says:

    Nadine=Mossad psych opps.

    Reply

  98. Mr.Murder says:

    Universalism should be the theme, not Exceptionalism.
    They’re all sons(and daughters) of Abraham.

    Reply

  99. JohnH says:

    This is great! Elite opinion is moving slowly but inexorably against the Likudniks and Kadimites. Soon that will trickle down to a broad public opinion that no longer supports the exceptionalism and arrogance of those who feel entitled to brutalize others while playing on people’s sympathies about the holocaust.
    Instead of realizing that the “distinct people” must find common ground–literally–with those whom it dispossessed, many of those “distinct people” prefer to simply freak out. And they should. Netanyahu and his cohorts are manipulating Israelis into an increasingly untenable position with decreasing public support.
    The sooner that Israel’s leaders learn to emphasize their common humanity with their neighbors, instead of their distinctive beliefs, the better.

    Reply

  100. Carroll says:

    Posted by nadine, Mar 03 2010, 11:35PM – Link
    ” This is 19th century racism being injected into the discussion.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Whatever you say dear.
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hasbara
    “The Hasbara Handbook prescribes fascinating instructions on attacking the messenger and avoiding the message at all costs ‘in ways that engage the emotions, and downplay rationality, in an attempt to promote’ their cause.
    In a section entitled ‘Name Calling,’ Israel’s Jewish Agency writes, ‘Creating negative connotations by name calling is done to try and get the audience to reject a person or idea on the basis of negative associations, without allowing a real examination of that person or idea.”

    Reply

  101. Carroll says:

    Posted by anirprof, Mar 03 2010, 11:04PM – Link
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Oh my Gawd!
    I think I saw the woman you are talking about a long time ago.
    Watching a c-span program showing some kind of lecture or training at an army college.
    It was unbelievable..seriously unbelievable.
    This woman was insane…she was “ranting” like a mad woman about Islam…all of Islam…and how they wanted to ‘take over the world’.
    It was so bad I called my congressman the next day since he is on the Armed Services committee to ask what in the hell this was about, putting this woman in front of army college students and members…his office knew nothing and couldn’t explain it.
    I wish I could remember her name. Seems to me all her venom centered around something that had happned to her or her family in the ME.

    Reply

  102. nadine says:

    “It’s all very circular and convoluted for the kind of zionist activist we see most on the net.
    The claim that jews are a “distinct race or people” doesn’t jive with the fact that there are different races or ethnics such as Asian Jews, Ethiopian Jews and so on.”
    It’s not convoluted at all. Jews are a distinct people (the Hebrew word “Am” means nation or people) and have been for over three thousands years. They are not one “race”. They don’t claim to be. They don’t think in those terms. You aren’t more or less Jewish depending on your skin color. Surely Israel proved this when it gathered in the poor dark-skinned Yemeni and Ethopian Jews? This is 19th century racism being injected into the discussion.
    Since you are so confused about it, let me ask, is there a French nation? Okay, does that mean there is a French race?
    Race and nation are not the same thing.

    Reply

  103. nadine says:

    POS, you can’t colonize your own country.

    Reply

  104. Carroll says:

    Responding,adding to POA
    I agree religion plays a part for the religious fanatics of the settlements….God’s chosen and so forth.
    But I don’t think religion plays any part in the leadership of Israel or most of those who support it, they are “Nationalist” Zionist. Which is the main pillar of Zionism. They believe Jews constitute a separate race or “people”. Hence the claim that “Jews were a Nation” centuries ago and they are recreating that nation in Israel.
    Religion or Judaism though is a useful tool however to appeal to and gather in other Jews who are religious.
    It’s all very circular and convoluted for the kind of zionist activist we see most on the net.
    The claim that jews are a “distinct race or people” doesn’t jive with the fact that there are different races or ethnics such as Asian Jews, Ethiopian Jews and so on.
    If you ask them to explain this they will say they are “both” a religion and a distinct race or people.
    So in the end they appear to be saying or believing that belonging to a religion makes up a ‘nation of people’ with a distinct race rather than “members of a religion” with a variey of races/ethnics.
    From what I can ferret out the zionist nationalist among the Jews can be seen as a sort of breakaway group of Jews beginning with the zionist founder Herzl, and it’s mostly secular.
    They base their beliefs/actions more on Jews as a nation of people and on the Jewish history of victim hood than they do on the religion of Judaism itself. But they do believe in and borrow a lot of what is useful to them like the ‘Chosen people’ and how they are suppose to be the moral leaders of the world. But also for them “chosen” is hubris and ego and tied up with revenge and gaining power to overcome their history as powerless victims of the world.

    Reply

  105. nadine says:

    The NYT has published an endless stream of pro-terrorist op-eds and just plain silly and dangerous op-eds on the Middle East, like last weeks’ opine that it would be good for Mideast stability if Iran got nukes.
    Every once in a while, they let a real historian like Ephraim Karsh in. This seems to upset Nir Rosen to the extent that he lets loose with one ad hominem after another, rather than address the arguments, which he appears not to have read. Karsh says the IP conflict is an urgent matter for US foreign policy? Where? He says just the opposite, that the claim that it’s central to Muslim world’s concerns is poppycock, it’s only being used to rally people around a shared hatred.
    To claim that Islam’s refusal to share space anywhere with a Jewish state has nothing to do with the conflict requires ignoring all statements from Hizbullah, Hamas, Iran and other Islamic fundamentalists, but as we see on this board, that is no problem for Rosen or all the other Israel-haters of the Left. It makes no sense. Even the lefties cannot explain why, if this is a anti-colonial struggle of the Palestinian people, why do all the non-Palestinian Muslims care so much about it? It’s not as if they like the Palestinians or treat them well themselves.
    As radical Islam takes over more and more of the IP struggle, it’s becoming ridiculous to keep insisting that this is a secular nationalist anti-colonial struggle — but that doesn’t slow Nir Rosen.
    He just denies the obvious! Arabs don’t vilify infidels, he say, in the face of daily evidence otherwise — or maybe he thinks it’s flattering to be called “the sons of apes and pigs” and described as part of a nefarious cabal to control the world? Hizbullah is only interested in protecting Lebanon (that would be extremely alarming news to Iran, who has paid hundreds of millions to found and arm Hizbullah as their foreign legion. Nasrallah’s alleigance to Tehran is OPEN, for heaven’s sake.). Arabs don’t fight each other, despite all of history saying otherwise. They really are all as one fighting for the poor dispossessed Palestinians – but Islam has nothing to do with the case! And so on.
    This is Bagdad Bob stuff – argument by hysterically denying the facts. (Which is why the Israel-hating thread idiots love it so much.)
    Steve Clemons, you are making your blog ridiculous printing stuff this poor.

    Reply

  106. anirprof says:

    I’m not surprised by Rosen’s experience at the CENTCOM conference he mentions. The Army hired one of Karsh’s PhD students to be their Middle East / Islam “expert” at their Staff College at Ft. Leavenworth, and she certainly sees the world the same way.

    Reply

  107. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “This kind of 60s rhetoric about “colonialism” is no more relevant to blahblahblahblah……”
    http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=61&docid=4564
    Ministry of Defense Acknowledges: One Quarter of all Settlements Breached the Settlement Freeze
    Hagit Ofran
    February 2010
    In response to the parliamentary question posed by MK Haim Oron (Meretz) the Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai admitted that 29 settlements breached the settlement freeze order.
    Peace Now has recorded at least 5 additional settlements (not included in the list provided by the Deputy Ministry of Defense) in which violations of the freeze were documented.
    Violations of the Freeze Order in at Least 33 Settlements
    The freeze order published on November 26, 2009 prohibited any new construction in the settlements, but allowed the continuation of construction in the cases where foundation work had already begun.
    In the majority of settlements construction work is taking place daily, but only works that begun after the order was published are considered a violation of the freeze.
    Peace Now has documented at least 14 cases where new foundations were laid after the freeze announcement. It should be noted that these cases are all documented cases with the settlers caught in the act. Some violations were also discovered by the Defense Ministry as indicated in the response by the Deputy Defense Minister to MK Haim Oron (see the complete list below).
    Working on Weekends and at Night
    Peace Now discovered that in some of the settlements construction work was being carried out on Saturdays (Shabbat), for example in Talmon and Neria.
    In addition construction work after dark was also documented.

    Reply

  108. larry birnbaum says:

    This is all great fodder for a dorm room debate at Patrice Lumumba Friendship University circa 1968… but I don’t see any practical, realistic suggestions for how to promote a peaceful resolution to this conflict.
    The Israelis and Palestinians will apparently re-start negotiations soon. Let’s wish them well, shall we?

    Reply

  109. kotzabasis says:

    Rosen’s response to Karsh’s op-ed in The New York Times is intellectually disgraceful. He turns an OPINION of professor Karsh, i.e., “Muslim states threaten Israel’s existence not so much out of concern for the Palestinians, but rather as part of a holy war to prevent the loss of a part of the House of Islam,” into a LIE.
    To say further as he does that Islam as a religion, which in 1000 year war with the infidels and with Judaism, plays no role in a “100 year colonial struggle between Zionist Jews and the Palestinian people (and briefly the Lebanese as well)”—even if one accepts, which I don’t, that it is a “colonial struggle”—shows Rosen how out of his depth he is on the subject. The irrefutable facts are that Islam as a fundamentalist religion first, has prevented Muslims to rise culturally, politically, and economically in our contemporary times, secondly, is the primary motivation that alienates Muslims from Western mores, and thirdly, is the paramount reason for the conflict between the “House of Islam” and the “House of War,” as depicted by the great Islamist scholar, Bernard Lewis. Rosen by brushing aside these facts reveals himself to be an ignoramus of history and therefore incapable of making a serious cogent response to Karsh’s op-ed.
    It seems that in his dauntless lengthy peregrinations among the ‘caves’ of the Middle East as a journalist, it has been a long time since he was able to whet his analytical instruments and prevent them from carrying the dust of the caves and rusting.

    Reply

  110. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Hmmm, I meant to say “Alan Dershowitz”, not “David Horowitz”…..
    oops…..

    Reply

  111. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Let me add my thanks to Rosen for his essay. His description of Karsh’s narrative can be applied equally to the narratives and opinions we often see here in Steve’s comment section, and those that hawk such a narrative, whether here on Steve’s blog, or on the pages of the New York Times, are despicable beyond all moral reason.
    I disagree with Nir on one point, (if it is an actual “disagreement”). I think religion plays a greater role in the Israeli’s actions than Nir outlines. The belief that one has “God’s sanction” for one’s actions is a powerful incentive to cast aside basic human compassion and moral conduct. Yes, Israel is doing a land grab. But it seems to me that the actual logistics of that land grab, in all the terrible ramifications for the Palestinian people, is rationalized and justified in the minds of many of the Jews by an inner belief that God has sanctioned their actions. Religious fervor often manifests itself through abject bigotry. It is not hard to justify cooking Palestinians in white phosphorous if you believe they are little more than animals anyway. And from the comments and opinions I read here and elsewhere from ardent defenders of Israeli crimes and human rights abuses, there is a definite and undeniable undertone of religious and racial bigotry.
    Frankly, I believe people like Lieberman or Netanyahu could exterminate the Palestinans in their entirety, and believe they did so at God’s behest. And certainly we can say that about these people like David Horowitz’s ilk. And even outside of Judaism, we can find those whose religious fanaticism rationalizes and justifies any abuse committed against the Palestinians, such as Hagee or Huckabee.
    I would’nt sell religion’s role in this short, Nir. It takes a special kind of person to scope a Palestinan farmer at 400 yards, drop him, then go home to dinner and the kids. And Israel seems to be becoming a society of such people. And the IDF? Note the Rabis that have made a point to underscore the “divine purpose” of the IDF jackboots.

    Reply

  112. JohnH says:

    Birbauum should restate his line “The Palestinians don’t plan on going anywhere and the Israelis need to become part of the neighborhood instead of being an alien force. Either a deal can be struck out of those two requirements, or it can’t.”

    Reply

  113. Pahlavan says:

    “at what point will those with the
    greatest stake in the reemergence of a humane Israel that
    burnishes rather than blackens the moral standing of Judaism and
    that discredits rather than invites anti-Semitism recognize that
    stake and act to secure it?”
    Never! Even if you were to discount colonialism, if there is no conflict, who is going to buy Wes Bush’s obsolete military technology? Not to mention, the need for military to take the back seat to a private security firm headed by our politician’s relatives will vanish, and our government will have less reasons to distract America about its internal mismanagement.
    If the conflict between Islam and Judaism was as bad as we make it to be here in the west, then Jews and Muslims would have killed each other centuries before the 30,000 Jews (living within practically walking distance to Iran’s parliament) would’ve been given the chance to reject Israel’s $10K per family offer for Iranian Jews to relocate to Israel.

    Reply

  114. DonS says:

    Why, I wonder, does Steve give this space to Nir Rosen’s obviously emotional and aggravated piece? I have read Rosen, and appreciate his frustration with the politicized, Israeli-centric propaganda that passes for most Western, particularly US, governmental interpretation of the ME. Many of us do.
    I can only think that Steve is inviting more discussion, or providing a room, that some here at TWN complain about; everything is reduced to Israel.
    So I wait for the usual Zionist pimps to appear.
    Too bad that Arabs, and Muslims in general aren’t treated as on the same level as Israelis by the NYT , the media in general, and our courageous Congressional members and leaders, not to mention the Prez and SOS . . .

    Reply

  115. Carroll says:

    Posted by larry birnbaum, Mar 03 2010, 9:20PM – Link >>>>>>>>>>>
    Evidently you don’t know enough about Arab or ME history to understand why I/P is seen as colonialism. I suggest Juan Cole’s book, ‘Colonialism and Revolution in the Middle East’ for starters.

    Reply

  116. samuelburke says:

    Norman Finkelstein, the professor who was smeared and kept
    from getting tenure at Depaul by Dershowits and his minions
    has a book out.
    http://counterpunch.com/finkelstein03032010.html
    “One poll registering the fallout from the Gaza attack in the
    United States found that American voters calling themselves
    supporters of Israel plummeted from 69 per cent before the
    attack to 49 per cent in June 2009, while voters believing that
    the U.S. should support Israel dropped from 69 per cent to 44
    per cent. Consumed by hate, emboldened by self-righteousness,
    and confident that it could control or intimidate public opinion,
    Israel carried on in Gaza as if it could get away with mass
    murder in broad daylight. But while official Western support for
    Israel held firm, the carnage set off an unprecedented wave of
    popular outrage throughout the world. Whether it was because
    the assault came on the heels of the devastation Israel wrought
    in Lebanon, or because of Israel’s relentless persecution of the
    people of Gaza, or because of the sheer cowardice of the
    assault, the Gaza invasion appeared to mark a turning point in
    public opinion reminiscent of the international reaction to the
    1960 Sharpeville massacre in apartheid South Africa.”

    Reply

  117. larry birnbaum says:

    This kind of 60s rhetoric about “colonialism” is no more relevant to resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians at this point than the religious rhetoric being criticized. Here’s the reality: The Israelis don’t plan on going anywhere and the Palestinians need a state. Either a deal can be struck out of those two requirements, or it can’t.

    Reply

  118. samuelburke says:

    Excellent article Mr Rosen.
    http://mondoweiss.net/2010/03/chas-freeman-this-time-
    apartheid-has-western-complicity.html
    “The question remains, however, at what point will those with the
    greatest stake in the reemergence of a humane Israel that
    burnishes rather than blackens the moral standing of Judaism and
    that discredits rather than invites anti-Semitism recognize that
    stake and act to secure it? That’s such a tough question that I
    confess to a bit of sympathy for Cohen and others now so
    obviously struggling to sustain the comfort of collective denial”

    Reply

  119. JohnH says:

    “An urgent foreign policy matter for the United States:” code words to the diaspora and the American taxpayer–send more welfare payments to Israel.

    Reply

  120. Jackie says:

    Thank you Mr. Rosen. This was an excellent read and I really appreciate your expertise. It was a pleasure to read this and confirm my thoughts on this subject.

    Reply

  121. Carroll says:

    “Its a territorial one, an anti-colonial one, a national liberation struggle, even if the discourse used these days to describe it is often religious.”
    Exactly.
    And I am delighted to see a “real” ME expert
    slapping down the idiotic nonsense that is circulated by the NYT, the WP and others.
    Let’s have some more.

    Reply

Add your comment

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