Understanding the Arabs...and them understanding us.

[MGB8]

One of the things that gets misunderstood by Arabists or anti-semites is that displaying an understanding of the Arab feelings in the Israeli-Arab conflict, even validating them as normal and natural feelings, is not the same as saying "this is right."

Nevertheless, I think Jews do do themselves a dis-service if they don't try to understand where the Arabs are coming from, as Ben Gurion did. I think it is also necessary, for the edification of the Arabists and anti-semites on this board, to explain the Jewish position, too.

The Arab narrative is fairly simple:

The Arabs dominted the middle east, including Canaan, for centuries. They retook it from the Christians. Sovereignty was almost always in Muslim hands - the Ummah was in control.

They could look out over the hills of Israel and say "this is mine... and my family's." It was not techinically true, someone else had sovereignty, but it was practically true - their tribes controlled, there was no one else who really controlled the land. It was sparesly populated, but it was theres.

Then these White European Jews started moving in. And all of the sudden, land that they had considered "theres" was threatened. The Jews wanted to make some of the land "theirs." The Jews were looking to change the status quo, the facts on the ground... they were the political agressors. And, while the Arabs resisted politically and through violence... the Jews won, again and again... and each Arab attempt to take back what once seemed to be theirs caused them to lose more and more of it.

Now, the Arabs can't look over the hills of Israel and say "this is my land, my family's land." the Jews can.

The Jewish side?

Well, the Jews were persecuted in a bunch of foreign lands. They were second class citizens in muslim countries. They were at the whim of the majorities of wherever they lived, and they wanted to change this.

They had a tie to the land of Israel, and particularly to Jerusalem. No Arab nation had named Jerusalem as its capital... the land was unimportant to the Arab nation as a whole, except when it was invaded - triggering the Dar al-Islam, Dar al-Harb button.

So Jews began to move to Israel. They bought land. There was more than enough land for both populations. And the Arabs had so much land in the middle east and beyond... why would they care if the wretched Jews got some tiny part.

The Jews just wanted to have a majority on their historic lands, a state of their own, like any other state - and if they did move and form the majority on some lands... why should the Arabs protest? They were not there to dominate. They brought money and modern techniques. They overpaid for lands tenfold.

The Jews didn't understand the tribal and "ummah" aspects. So, when the Arabs essentially chose attempted genocide over acknowledging that some of their national aspirations (the cementing of the practical status quo) would not be realized, the Jews were shocked. Not all... not Ben Gurion. But many.

And then came the realities that come from an ethnic conflict, realities that ugly, represented the realization that the national aspirations of the two groups, Arab and Jews, were mutually exclusive. Either Arabs ruled, and dominated Jews, or Israel exists.

The Arabs felt, and still feel, that they have a "right" to rule. After all, for centuries, despite whatever (muslim) leader was actually sovereign, ARAB tribes ruled the land of Canaan.

The Jews imported concepts of human rights and human equality. The Jews had the RIGHT to immigrate, and they were there, and just because the Arabs had had de facto control of the land for centuries does not mean that they deserved it in perpetuity. Clearly, couldn't they see the stronger ties of the Jews to the area... the Jewish sites, the Jewish temples...the Jewish NEED for a state of their own.

But the Arabs didn't care. They don't care. They thought it was theres. For all intents and purposes, it had been, even if legally it hadn't been. And thus the Jews were "stealing" and deserved what they got. Every Israeli action is interpreted through the prism of that concept - that the Jews are taking from what was, if not by law, by facts on the ground, Arab.

And the Jews viewed every Arab action in reaction to the Arab view - because implicit in that Arab view is that genocide of the Jews was preferable to giving up their claims and aspirations.

In essence, the Jews learned to understand the Arabs... but the Arabs never understood the Jews. The Anti-semites on this board have so adopted the Arab narrative, that they too need to learn to understand the Jews. Of course, they don't WANT TO... they'd rather go on hating Jews rather than view things in context.

Peace... that all desired goal... may be illusory. As long as the Arabs don't understand the Jews, as long as they continue rejecting Israel's right to exist - this conflict will continue. But, there is hope that the Arabs are learning to understand the Jews, and, in doing so, will learn to accept Israel's existence -the frustration of Arab national aspirations on 1% of the middle east.

In the end, the moral judgment is easy. For all of its sins, Israel is in the right, and the Arabs in the wrong. the Arabs put their claims and feelings ahead of the Jews right to LIFE and independence, not to mention Jewish claims and feelings. (So too do the anti-semites). Under utilitarian argument, under "lesser of the evils", under any moral standards that are not perverse, Jews are, overall (though not in every specific action) in the right, and the Arabs in the wrong.

But the Arabs have not shared these moral conceptions. These ideas, utilitarianism, human EQUALITY, are REJECTED by a tribal culture of DHIMMIS and Muslims. That is, however, beginning to change. As the war of ideas between 7th century Islamism and Modern Liberal thought battle, the Arabs are losing their nerve. They have sped this along, too... by adopting western arguments to attack Israel, they become vulnerable to them themselves. Sure, some only use these arguments superficially, and avoid the fact that the Arabs attempted genocide (ethnic cleansing of the worst kind) on the Jews over and over again, and still support it in large part, like our resident anti-semites do.

But many more cannot deal with the cognative dissonence. And that is the key to peace.

Many have said that the Arab conflict with the West will be solved by the end of the Israeli-Arab conflict. The have it exactly backwards. The end of the Arab conflict with the West... the West's victory in this war of ideas... will lead to the end of the Israeli Arab conflict. It is already happening. It just a matter of time.

[skeptic05]

The Arab narrative is fairly simple:

The Arabs dominted the middle east, including Canaan, for centuries. They retook it from the Christians. Sovereignty was almost always in Muslim hands - the Ummah was in control.

They could look out over the hills of Israel and say "this is mine... and my family's." It was not techinically true, someone else had sovereignty, but it was practically true - their tribes controlled, there was no one else who really controlled the land. It was sparesly populated, but it was theres.

Then these White European Jews started moving in. And all of the sudden, land that they had considered "theres" was threatened. The Jews wanted to make some of the land "theirs." The Jews were looking to change the status quo, the facts on the ground... they were the political agressors. And, while the Arabs resisted politically and through violence... the Jews won, again and again... and each Arab attempt to take back what once seemed to be theirs caused them to lose more and more of it.

Very simplified, but in a nutshell you have it right. David Ben-Gurion conceded as much many times:

David Ben Gurion: "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"

David Ben Gurion: "Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves - politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice."


Some good independent analysis of the Arab narrative, I will also include in this thread:

Professor Erich Fromm (Jewish writer and respected thinker): “In general international law, the principle holds true that no citizen loses his property or his rights of citizenship; and the citizenship right is de facto a right to which the Arabs in Israel have much more legitimacy than the Jews. Just because the Arabs fled? Since when is that punishable by confiscation of property, and by being barred from returning to the land on which a people's forefathers have lived for generations? Thus, the claim of the Jews to the land of Israel cannot be a realistic claim. If all nations would suddenly claim territory in which their forefathers had lived two thousand years ago, this world would be a madhouse. I believe that, politically speaking, there is only one solution for Israel, namely, the unilateral acknowledgement of the obligation of the State towards the Arabs – not to use it as a bargaining point, but to acknowledge the complete moral obligation of the Israeli State to its former inhabitants of Palestine.”

Nathan Chofshi (Jewish writer): “We came and turned the Arabs into tragic refugees. And still we dare slander and malign them, to besmirch their name; instead of being deeply ashamed of what we did, and trying to undo some of the evil we committed, we justify our terrible acts and even attempt to glorify them.”

Now I will look at the rest of your thread.

Well, the Jews were persecuted in a bunch of foreign lands. They were second class citizens in muslim countries. They were at the whim of the majorities of wherever they lived, and they wanted to change this.

Jewish treatment in Muslim countries was never perfect pre-Zionism, but it was nonetheless pretty good. The Rambam was wowed into saying "Islam - what a wonderful religion!" In Judaism, we are allowed to pray in a mosque but not a Church. Whilst the Christian Crusaders were attempting to wipe every Jew off the planet, the only place of refuge was the Arab world. The Muslim populations of these lands showed relative tolerance to the foreign refugees. Whilst Christians were banned from displaying religious symbols in the street and on churches, had to pay an extra tax, and were banned from preventing another Christian from converting to Islam, the Jews escaped all of these terms. They did not have to pay the extra tax. They held high ranks in Muslim armies, and rose to the highest posts in government service. During this time, the Jews produced a Golden Age – generating great names in philosophy, medicine, science, mathematics and linguistics. This was all made possible because of the tolerance shown by the Arab nations. Whilst taking refuge in Arab states, Jews flourished in every aspect of human endeavour.

They had a tie to the land of Israel, and particularly to Jerusalem.

The overwhelming majority of Jews pre-Herzl was anti-zionist. A key belief at the time is that Jews were in exile and only God through the Mashiach could bring the Jews back to their "homeland." Even up to 1967, the majority of worldwide Jewry were against or indifferent to the State of Israel.

No Arab nation had named Jerusalem as its capital... the land was unimportant to the Arab nation as a whole, except when it was invaded - triggering the Dar al-Islam, Dar al-Harb button.

An Islamic friend sent me this in regards to Jerusalem:

'Jerusalem is mentioned in the Holy Quran as is the Prophet Mohammad's night journey to it. Contrary to the Tanach, the Quran is not a book of stories about historical figures and ancestors. The Quran is mainly concerned with giving guidance to the believers on how they can best achieve salvation. Mecca is mentioned only once in the Quran and Medina is only mentioned twice. The Quran does not even mention these cities as being holy, and offers very few names of places. The fact that they are mentioned so few times certainly does not diminish their status in the eyes of all Muslims. Islam is not only comprised of the Quran, but of the Hadith of the Prophet and the Shariah. The Prophet said, "A journey (with the intention of worship) should be taken only to three mosques: The Sacred Mosque in Mecca, my Mosque in Medina, and the Masjid Al Aqsa in Jerusalem." It is a sacred duty for Muslims to visit Jerusalem, its mosque and the sacred areas that surround it. Pilgrims to Mecca and Medina often visit Jerusalem first. Virtually the entire city of Jerusalem is Waqf land (religious endowment). This land cannot be sold nor transferred. The Masjid Al Aqsa has always been a primary seat of learning in Islam, attracting many Muslim scholars who have settled in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is also mentioned countless times in the New Testament (Christian Holy Book) and many other Holy Books (Bahai's etc.). If this is supposed to make it any less important to one religion or another, it is a ridiculous assumption. But rights of native Palestinians (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) to Jerusalem is not derived of religious texts but by virtue of domicile and living there for hundreds and thousands of years.'

So Jews began to move to Israel. They bought land. There was more than enough land for both populations. And the Arabs had so much land in the middle east and beyond... why would they care if the wretched Jews got some tiny part.

Even in 1947, just a year before the State of Israel was declared, the Jews only owned 7% of the land in Palestine. So why were they offered 55%? Furthermore, the Arabs did not have a problem with Jews buying land, they had a problem with Zionist leaders saying they found 'nothing immoral in compulsory transfer' (Ben-Gurion) and openly declaring their wish to change the demographic balance in Palestine in favour of Jews.

The Jews didn't understand the tribal and "ummah" aspects. So, when the Arabs essentially chose attempted genocide over acknowledging that some of their national aspirations (the cementing of the practical status quo) would not be realized, the Jews were shocked. Not all... not Ben Gurion. But many.

When you are referring to Arabs, are you talking about the Arab states surrounding Israel or the Palestinians themselves? Before the first foreign Arab soldier set foot in Israel, Zionists had already lead 13 ethnic cleansing operations (7 outside the areas designated to them in the partition plan). Indeed, Zionism always sought to expand its territory.

David Ben-Gurion: “The Jewish State now being offered to us is not the Zionist objective. Within this area it is not possible to solve the Jewish question. But it can serve as a decisive stage along the path to greater Zionist implementation. It will consolidate in Palestine, within the shortest possible time, the real Jewish force which will lead us to our historical goal.”

Yitzhak Navon (Israeli President and a leading Labor Party politician): "The very point of Labor's Zionist program is to have as much land as possible and as few Arabs as possible!"

Vladimir Jabotinsky: “The world has become accustomed to the idea of mass migrations and has almost become fond of them. Hitler – as odious as he is to us – has given this idea a good name in the world.”

David Ben-Gurion: “I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral.”

Menachem Begin: "The partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized...Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And forever."


I look forward to hearing a reply.

Skeptic05

[chomsky]

could not have said that any better myself

[Mediocrates]

Yes but its a disconnected narrative made to appear like a linear thread. Which its not.

Yes Maimonides was well treated as were all the other upper class court Jews.

Yes before there was zionism most people were not zionists.

Claims of 13 operations are unfounded.

Some Jewish writers hew to the antizionist narrative. I suspect some Arabs hew to the zionist narrative as well.

And as always the Iron Wall is not a dirty word:

They said they were coming
The wanted to coexist
But that decision is largely up to the arabs
If you don't want to coexist then we must be separated

Anything else is politics, why do you childishly not understand that? Is it intentional, are you dense or are you as I suspect just someone with an agenda?

[minusthejihad]

could not have said that any better myself

And that's most likely why you didn't.

[MGB8]

Jerusalem IS NOT mentioned in the Qu'ran, not as part of the night journey or anything else.

I'll get to the other things later, but the history of this deserves its own link - there are many cites if you care to actually learn something...

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/h003.html

or, if you don't like that site, how about translation from an Arab source...

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cg...=sd&ID=SP56403

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/84


Now, that doesn't mean that Jerusalem hasn't come to be important, today, to Muslims... but it is not essential.. and it is not in the Quran.

[MGB8]

For those who want to argue that the Dome of the Rock, which was built earlier, means something...

http://arabworld.nitle.org/texts.php...=49&sequence=4

POLITICS.

[determinism]

MGB8,

i agree with most of what you wrote.

some issues however:

So, when the Arabs essentially chose attempted genocide over acknowledging that some of their national aspirations (the cementing of the practical status quo) would not be realized, the Jews were shocked. Not all... not Ben Gurion. But many.

how can it have been a surprise considering the tensions that existed prior to 1948? weren't both sides using terror to drive the other side out of the territory?

is it true that the arabs back then and today want to kill all jews? if this were the case why could the jews continue to live in arab lands for quite a while before they were pressured to leave?

In the end, the moral judgment is easy. For all of its sins, Israel is in the right, and the Arabs in the wrong. the Arabs put their claims and feelings ahead of the Jews right to LIFE and independence, not to mention Jewish claims and feelings. (So too do the anti-semites). Under utilitarian argument, under "lesser of the evils", under any moral standards that are not perverse, Jews are, overall (though not in every specific action) in the right, and the Arabs in the wrong.

the question is why should the arabs not have put their claims and feelings first? they were not responsible for the holocaust. they had finally gained independance from the ottoman empire...so why should they have accepted the jewish state?
that the jewish standpoint on the issue is at least as understandable (finally having a save homeland) is clear. but i think no population would have accepted foreign domination of its land because of what happened to the immigrants in other countries.

[Reffo]

David Ben Gurion: "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"

An interesting but out of context quote, I would like you to post a reference or a link so that I can assess the context in which this statement was made.

In the meanwhile, let's just analyse it a bit. My interpretation of it is that he was just trying to look at the perspective of his adversaries, as all good leaders would or should. Of course, It does not necessarily mean that Ben Gurion agreed with the Arab perspective, it just means that he was capable of looking at things from their point of view. As one might expect, his observations and insight of the Arab psyche was accurate when he said:

but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"

Now my question then in turn is:

OK then, but equally, why should the Jews be sympathetic to what the Arabs want? Either there is a compromise by both sides or there is no compromise on either side

I suspect that's what he was trying to say, he was saying that they had to fight their war and the Jews had to fight theirs. Until of course, reality would take care of itself, through whatever outcome. Obviously Ben Gurion was a great pragmatist.

[Ariksan]

the question is why should the arabs not have put their claims and feelings first? they were not responsible for the holocaust.

The Holocaust has nothing to do with the fundamental right of the Jews to the Land of Israel. As you know - the conflict didn't start with the immigration of the Holocaust survivors - it only speed up the process. The climax of the conflict after the decleration of indipendence was going to happen sooner or later - with or without the Holocaust.

they had finally gained independance from the ottoman empire...so why should they have accepted the jewish state?

By 'they' do you mean the Arabs in general or the Arabs living in the mandate of Palestine? Because there was no 'Palestinians' back then. Palestine which included Jorden was part of the Syrian province. There was never ever an independent entity called 'Palestine'. The Arabs didn't gain independence from the Ottamans immediately. They were occupied by British and French forces which then invented new countries - Iraq, Syria, Transjordan etc.. One small part of this huge Arab territory was reserved for the Jews. The Land of Israel - the native country of the Jews.

We are not foreign to the Land of Israel - the Arabs are foreign to the Land of Israel. But of course there were Arabs living in the Land of Israel back then. But simply living somewhere doesn't automaticly imply sovereignty.

I would recomend you to read the 'Ethics of the Iron Wall' by Ze'ev Jabotinsky.

[Reffo]

I look forward to hearing a reply.

We could all go on and on about who said what to whom when and in what context. However, at the end of the day, the reason why this conflict is so complex and intractable is that essentially, both peoples, both the Palestinian Arabs and the Israeli Jews have legitemate claims. Both have a right for their own respective independent countries. The difference is that most reasonable Israelis always accepted and still accept such a proposition but most Arabs have not and many still don't to this day because they, like you, don't feel that Jews have ANY right to any of the land. So, even if they were right in 1948 (of course they were NOT), it is now 2005 and Jews are definitely in the majority. Are you saying that they should all be expelled? If you do, then let me ask you this: How far should one go back to address past injustices? If such a logic applies to 1948 then why should it not apply back to the time of the Arab invasion of several hundred years ago? Don't you realise that prior to that there were more native Jews in the holy land than Arabs? So what's so significant about the Arab majority of 1948? Why don't we judge the situation by the majority of Jews before the Arab invasion? Or even better, why don't we judge it by the majority today? And as you know, the Jews are in the majority in Israel today!

My question to you Skeptic is this: You profess to be a Jew but you see everything from the Arab perspective. You don't seem to find even a tiny amount of justification for even the most basic grievances of Jews but you are very sympathetic to ALL the Arab claims, you seem to be more Arab than many Arabs. Can you therefore blame us for questioning your professed identity?

[Ariksan]

blablabla Jews are bad blablabla Jews are evil blablabla Israel is bad blablabla Israel is evil

I once had an exchange with a German youth at a pro-Israel rally. He came up to me and told me that Israel has no right to exist anyway and that it should be destroyed. So I asked him where he wants us to go, maybe we should go back into the gas chambers. To which he replied that I can't say that because I'm being racist - it's anti-german to say something like that!

[MGB8]

I didn't mean "shocked" as in surprised. I meant "shocked" as in outraged.

And, while some Jews (Irgun, Stern Gang) did use terror (although the attack on the King David Hotel cannot be considered terrorism, it was a military headquarters, and there was a call ahead that was ignored), it wasn't so much to "drive the Arabs out" on the part of the Jews (although some certainly did think this way.)

As for the Arabs, they were badly organized, they too weren't unified, and, most importantly in this case, the Jews did have British protection from genocide, even as there was a British-Jewish conflict that was brewing.

Also, during the Ottoman period, this type of Arab nationalism didn't exists as much, and, frankly, the Arabs weren't nearly as threatened - not as many Jews, no sign that the Ottomans (muslim rule) is going to go away. The agitation against the Turks (formented and supported by the Brits) didnt' come so much from the local Arabs.

MGB8,

i agree with most of what you wrote.

some issues however:



how can it have been a surprise considering the tensions that existed prior to 1948? weren't both sides using terror to drive the other side out of the territory?

is it true that the arabs back then and today want to kill all jews? if this were the case why could the jews continue to live in arab lands for quite a while before they were pressured to leave?



the question is why should the arabs not have put their claims and feelings first? they were not responsible for the holocaust. they had finally gained independance from the ottoman empire...so why should they have accepted the jewish state?
that the jewish standpoint on the issue is at least as understandable (finally having a save homeland) is clear. but i think no population would have accepted foreign domination of its land because of what happened to the immigrants in other countries.

[MGB8]

Oh... I forgot, the last, and most important thing...

This is balancing not between Arabs wanting a state of their own (they have many) and Jews wanting a state of their own.

It is, in a practical sense, a choice of the Arabs between genocide (or, at best domination and ethnic cleansing) of Jews as opposed to aspirations for control of specific real estate.

For the Jews... it is a choice between having a state of their own, and also being able to defend themselves (avoiding the situation that allowed for the Holocaust) and denying the Arabs land they viewed as theirs.. and to a degree expelling/ethnic cleansing the Arabs there to the other Arab countries. (But notice, no genocide... the Arabs have somewhere else to go... the jews go into the sea.)

[Mediocrates]

Or, in the nascent days pre the foundation of Israel they were, some of them, terrorists. So? That changes nothing today. Why shy away from it? You've got Marixists who want to throw bombs you had Baathists who killed lots of people you've got jihadists who want to videotape beheadings. And there there were a few paramilitary Jews who waged a short war against the English army who didn't bother with counter terrorism operations at all. They simply grabbed people and hanged them then and there. If anything the political behavior, or lack of behavior, instabilty, brutality of the countries of the Arab world reflects exactly how they were treated by the British, French, Germans and Italians and has little to do with how they feel about the US or Israel. Those are just cold facts. Sorry but they are.

See this is the core to understanding the Arabs and anyone else understanding them. It's not about compassion and mercy. It's not about who's bruised ego got hurt the worst. It's about how states are formed. They want a state, fine, they tried to snatch one and failed and failed and failed. They'll be lucky to get a functional state-let out of the deal. But what they need to do is disabuse themselves of the belief that they can win. They won't, they will never win. Every last Palestinian between Cyprus and Baghdad will be dead and buried before they do. That's just a hard cold fact and the way things are. So the point to understanding one another is understanding this. Negotiate rartionally or die trying, it's really that brutally simple. If you want to have sing alongs, and group projects and talk about shared experiences and do all those things they do at summer camp that's fine. I applaud you. It's a good idea for people to make some effort to humanize one another. But those are things that civilized countries do with one another. First, deal, then have some felafel.