Please make sure to read my disclaimer: Why Religious Zionism, Not Judaism, Is The Problem.
Read the Introduction: Does Jewish Law Justify Killing Civilians?
Previous: #2 Collective Punishment is Kosher, pages I, II, III, and IV
We have seen previously (see pages I, II, III, and IV) how Halakha permits collective punishment. It is perhaps no surprise then that ethnic cleansing, the logical conclusion of collective punishment, is also facilitated.
When a Jewish army is about to attack a Gentile city, it must issue an ultimatum offering the besieged population three options: (1) flee, (2) subservience and tribute, or (3) war and death. To this effect, Rabbi Michael J. Broyde cites the great Maimonides on p.20 of War and Peace in the Jewish Tradition in a section entitled “The Civilian, the Siege, and the Standard of Conduct:”
Mamoinides states:
Joshua, before he entered the land of Israel, sent three letters to its inhabitants. The first one said that those that wish to flee [the oncoming army] should flee. The second one said that those that wish to make peace should make peace. The third letter said that those that want to fight a war should prepare to fight a war should prepare to fight a war.
As for the second option of “peace,” this is clarified on p.212:
Before undertaking the siege of a hostile city, offers of peace must be undertaken. The terms are subservience and tribute.
Here, we come to understand an interesting Jewish war ethic: the prohibition to surround a city on all four sides. Writes Broyde on pp.20-21:
Maimonides codifies a number of specific rules of military ethics, all based on Talmudic sources:
When one surrounds a city to lay siege to it, it is prohibited to surround it from four sides; only three sides are permissible. One must leave a place for inhabitants to flee for all those who wish to abscond to save their life.
Broyde clarifies:
I would add, however, that I do not understand Maimonides’ words literally. It is not surrounding the city on all four sides that is prohibited–rather, it is the preventing of the outflow of civilians or soldiers who are seeking to flee. Of course, Jewish law would allow one to stop the inflow of supplies to a besieged city through this fourth side.
Sounds pretty ethical, right? But here’s the rub: because Halakha commands the Jewish military to always allow civilians to flee the city, those civilians who fail to do so automatically forfeit their civilian status and are classified as combatants. Writes R. Broyde on p.22:
This approach [allowing civilians to flee] solves another difficult problem according to Jewish law: the role of the “innocent” civilian in combat. Since the Jewish tradition accepts that civilians (and soldiers who are surrendering) are always entitled to flee from the scene of the battle, it would logically follow that all who remain voluntarily are classified as combatants, since the opportunity to leave is continuously present. Particularly in combination with Joshua’s practice of sending letters of warning in advance of combat, this legal approach limits greatly the role of the doctrine of “innocent civilian” in the Jewish tradition. Essentially, the Jewish tradition feels that innocent civilians should do their very best to remove themselves from the battlefield, and those who remain are not so innocent. If one voluntarily stays in a city that is under siege, one assumes the mantle of combatant. [90]
In footnote 90, Broyde says that “I would apply this rule in modern day combat situations to all civilians who remain voluntarily in the locale of the war in a way which facilitates combat.” Translation: these Arab civilians who don’t flee for their lives when Israel invades them are “not so innocent” and “assume[] the mantle of combatant.”
This disturbing Jewish war ethic finds itself in the introduction of War and Peace in the Jewish Tradition, on p.xvii-xviii:
Of course, Jewish law sometimes demands overtures prior to declaring war to afford all who wish the opportunity to depart (known in Halakhah as the duty to surround on only three sides). Those who remain, however–including sympathetic civilians–are no longer innocents, and their death, when militarily necessary, is according to Broyde unfortunate but halakhically proper.
The phrase “including sympathetic civilians” implies quite clearly that also included in this are those other than sympathetic civilians–anyone who “voluntarily” stays behind. One wonders: do Israeli rockets stop before they detonate on Palestinian heads, and ask them: “Are you voluntarily staying behind or not?” In reality, there is no way to know how who stays behind voluntarily or not–they are all licit to slaughter. Of course, any civilian deaths are of course “unfortunate,” something that Palestinians take great solace in knowing.
Israel routinely launches massive operations against Palestinians, often warning the civilians beforehand with leaflets and telephone calls. By so warning, the Israelis absolve themselves of all culpability: the civilians who refuse to flee their homes are no longer innocent in Israeli eyes and become licit to kill. Scores of Palestinians subsequently die and then the Israelis pat themselves on the back for being so moral: look at how moral and ethical we are that we actually warn civilians ahead of time that we are going to bomb them.
In a similar vein, Rabbi Broyde and other Jewish religious authorities indulge themselves in self-congratulatory awe about how immensely moral and ethical Halakha is in this regard: Jewish law has such a great emphasis on protecting civilians that we have an obligation to leave a fourth side open for them; we are so great and ethical. Yet, Nahmanides elaborates on this obligation in a way that clearly explains the moral rationale behind “leaving a fourth side open,” saying (as quoted on p.21 of War and Peace in the Jewish Tradition):
God commanded us that when we lay siege to a city that we leave one of the sides without a siege so as to give them a place to flee to. It is from this commandment that we learn to deal with compassion even with our enemies at a time of war; in addition, by giving our enemies a place to flee to, they will not charge at us with as much force.
Rabbi Shaul Israeli, considered “one of the most important rabbis of the Religious Zionist school of thought” and author of the influential monograph on civilians in the Jewish war ethic, noted that Maimonides [alternately known as Rambam] came to the same conclusion as Nahmanides did: the obligation to leave a fourth side open is of military benefit to the Jewish army. Rabbi Gil Student writes:
[Rabbi Shaul Israeli] explains that according to the Rambam this rule is a military tactic, i.e. the best way to create a siege is to leave a side open so the fighters have an escape route and do not need to fight to the end.
This seems to be the real rationale for the rule obligating “a fourth side” open: it facilitates the speedy and efficient removal of a native population, the necessary component of ethnic cleansing. ”Humanitarian” concern seems to have very little to do with this, since the rule was derived from the Biblical Joshua, who slaughtered the inhabitants of a city when he conquered it.
It is true that Joshua offered some civilian populations the opportunity to flee before he invaded them (which he did by leaving open one side of the city). But if this was done out of compassion for them, then why did Joshua kill the civilians within the city once he conquered it? Therefore, it seems that this rule is a tactical maneuver to facilitate ethnic cleansing.
That this has very little to do with “humanitarian concern” can be gleaned from the fact that the rule to leave a side open is only to be enforced when it is beneficial from a tactical standpoint to do so. Rabbi Shaul Israeli notes that “Rambam [said] this rule is a military tactic” but that also “this is a humanitarian law.” R. Israeli reconciles these two statements by saying: “Therefore, according to the Rambam this rule only applies when the tactic is [militarily] appropriate,” in which case it is understood to be humanitarian too. How very convenient.
One sees this convenience in modern day Israel: during the illegal siege of Beirut (in Lebanon) by Israeli forces, a heated discussion took place about its legality from a Halakhic perspective. The overwhelming opinion was that the action was permitted under Jewish law. Rabbi Shaul Israeli argued that not only was the rule to leave a side open applicable only when it was tactically useful to do so, but also that the rule simply did not apply to “Obligatory wars,” a special class of war under Jewish law. (There is widespread consensus that Israel’s wars today are considered Obligatory wars.)
Prof. Arye Edrei writes in Divine Spirit and Physical Power:
The message inherent in Rabbi [Shaul] Yisraeli’s argument is clear: the law to leave the fourth side open is not applicable today.
By linking the rule to tactical benefit, Jewish law is pliable enough to permit facilitation of “forced transfer of Palestinians” (Israeli euphemism for ethnic cleansing) when convenient–and massacre when desired.
Of note is that, for all their self-congratulatory awe at how immensely moral Jewish law is for demanding leaving a side of the city open for civilians, Religious Zionist rabbis are in the lead calling for more regressive methods against Palestinians. It is certainly the rare exception that any of them would call the Israeli siege of Palestinians sinful or blameworthy.
Even Rabbi Shlomo Goren, who voiced the opposing view that it is imperative to leave a fourth side open in Obligatory wars, believed that “the Israeli army fulfilled this commandment in the siege of Beirut.” Similarly, the vast majority of Israeli religious leaders gave their blessing to the Gaza blockade.
* * * * *
From its birth to the present day, Israel has used this warped mentality to facilitate ethnic cleansing and the slaughter of civilians. During the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948-1949, Zionist forces efficiently emptied over four-hundred Palestinian villages and cities. Israeli historian Ilan Pappe writes on p.101 of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine that Jewish forces “tried to force a swift departure” of the indigenous Palestinian population “by issuing an ultimatum to the people to leave their homes.” On p.133, Prof. Pappe writes:
The [Jewish] brigade usually closed in on villages from three flanks, tactically creating an ‘open gate’ on the fourth flank through which they could drive the people out.
This rule (of “leaving the fourth side open”) and its important corollary (whoever refuses to leave “assumes the mantle of combatant”) continue to be exploited by Israel today. Palestinians who refuse to flee are accused of willingly converting themselves into “human shields.”
Such views are articulated by leading Israeli intellectuals, such as Prof. Asa Kasher (author of the much touted Code of Conduct of the Israel Defense Forces). Nadene Goldfoot summarizes Prof. Asa Kasher’s views: “If people don’t leave the combat zone they become a human shield for the terrorists and thus becomes part of the war.” Kasher’s quote can be found in the Jewish Post, in which he accuses a civilian who “doesn’t want to leave” of “turn[ing] into the human shield of the terrorist.”
What could possibly be more morbid than placing the blame on the victim? But this is exactly what Israel’s apologists do. To add another layer to the absurdity, they then revel at their own magnificence, at how morally superior they are–how they have The Most Moral Army in the World™.
Is it really any surprise that the Jewish tradition promotes ethnic cleansing, considering that this is an overwhelmingly prevalent theme throughout the Bible? (See parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6-i, 6-ii, 6-iii, 6-iv, 7, 8, 9-i, and 9-ii of LoonWatch’s Understanding Jihad Series.) But always remember: Islam is uniquely violent.
Note: The next page of “Promoting Ethnic Cleansing” will be published shortly.
October 8th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
It is a nice article but let us not forget that we are living in the 21st century and Israel is the only secular Jewish Democratic State ,surrounded by blood thirsty Muslim countries who wish to see this tiny State disappear.But It will never happen.It will be the Muslim countries which will evaporate into oblivion.Watch my lips.
October 8th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Interesting…I guess that the the Jews killed in the Twin Towers had no room to complain because Bin Laden declared war against America several years before, and they did not choose to flee.
Really, any one who ever tries to justify the deliberate targeting of civilians is a barbarian. I don’t care if they are Jews, Muslims, Christians, Pagans or Atheists–such action has no place in civilized society.
I hope LW also decides to do a series on how “Christians” justified the ethnic cleansing of the Americas and the enslavement of huge numbers of Africans. These sins are rarely discussed or debated. We have a Columbus Day, but do not remember the genocide of hundreds of native nations. We don’t even have a day to remember the atrocity of slavery, but we celebrate the Civil War with reenactments as if it was some kind of game.
Frankly, the arrogant hypocrisy of Zionists and American “Patriots” is nauseating. We need to realize our own sins before we scream against “Moozlims” for their barbarity.
October 8th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
How can you be Jewish AND secular?
October 8th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
“Mamoinides states: Joshua, before he entered the land of Israel, sent three letters to its inhabitants…” I am wonder where they get that information? I do not know that Joshua did sent the letter. I do know Joshua and his armies did massacre Canaanites.
October 8th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
@Halal Dork. Lets not forget we are living in the 21st century and the bullshit claim that Israel is a democratic state is just as silly as claiming apartheid South Africa was a democratic state. Only in the dreams of ignorant bigots will the Muslim countries evaporate. All the evidence says other wise. Number 1 the arabs have more children than the israelies do. So by default you will lose without a shot being fired. But hey its ok to dream.
October 8th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Curly, you must remember that Judaism Is not just derived from the Bible, but also Talmud. Talmud contains far more material than the Bible.
October 8th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
@Pork face
Agreed: Israel is the only secular democracy that is racist.
October 9th, 2011 at 3:34 am
“But always remember: Islam is uniquely violent.”
Exactly, because self-criticism hurts. So, the tactic has been and always will be; show no mercy to the other peoples’ beliefs and traditions, but look for all of the nuances of my own. This is the core problem of the Zionist/neo-Conservative Islamophobes. They hate to look in the mirror.
October 9th, 2011 at 4:03 am
@Daniel,
I always enjoyed reading your scholarly work, balanced analogies. I don’t know about your self. Where I can read your introduction please.
It would be also good to add as you suggested, topic of “Christians justification of ethnic cleansing of the Americas and the enslavement of huge numbers of Africans” to learn the historical facts.
Thanks.
October 9th, 2011 at 4:04 am
Sorry, I mean Danios.
October 9th, 2011 at 4:53 am
Jews are no longer the Chosen people of God. SO you can quote all the scripture you want, it doesn’t matter. The covenant is no longer VALID. Plus we all know Most Jews reject Jesus in Israel and are waiting for there Messiah, which will be the Anti Christ. So it doesn’t surprise me that Israel is built on the opposite of Jesus and God.
When Jesus return he will Kill you anti Christ followers and damn in hell you shall be.
October 9th, 2011 at 8:50 am
@halal pork.
I just wanted to correct something you posted. You said that Israel is a secular, Jewish, Democratic state.
There is no such thing as a theocratic (in this case Jewish) secular, democratic state. A state based on religious doctrine of any kind, be definition is not secular, and because a theocracy promotes religion through governance, it does not give equal rights to those not of that religion…which means it cant be a democracy.
Looking at Israel as a Jewish state…if it were a religious point of view, is not democratic, and looking at it from an ethnic point of view is the same as apartied.
_____
We hear all the time, when the IDF kills children that ‘they were warned’ to leave the combat area, but only the logical would ask…especially since the tactic of IDF combat is to destroy things like transportation routes (railroads, major intersections, petrol stations, bridges…etc) and so on, or to literally not allow safe passage for people, even if they wanted to leave (as in Gaza) how the IDF can accuse the people…forced to protect thier homes as a last option can claim that the resistors are using thier children as ‘human shields’
Exactly, how does…say a baby make a choice to flee, or an old woman or man? Where do they flee to? What pervision is made for them in a humanitarian sence of they choose to leave? Will they simply leave thier city under siege to starve outside it…since we are not finding any alternative, other than slavery and submission in Jewish law…even for those who flee.
I am glad you have brought this stradegy of Jewish war to the front. Now it makes sence at least to me that to the Israelis, fighting war in this manner is humane, even though it is barbaric in the eyes of the rest of us…much like stoning is in Iran.
What doesn’t make sence is, why certian parts of the world look away, excuse, condone, support, or justify Israeli barbarism, but condemn the same things if others do it.
October 9th, 2011 at 9:07 am
“Israel routinely launches massive operations against Palestinians, often warning the civilians beforehand with leaflets and telephone calls. By so warning, the Israelis absolve themselves of all culpability: the civilians who refuse to flee their homes are no longer innocent in Israeli eyes and become licit to kill. Scores of Palestinians subsequently die and then the Israelis pat themselves on the back for being so moral: look at how moral and ethical we are that we actually warn civilians ahead of time that we are going to bomb them.”
WHY DOn’t these motherfuckers provide them a house in israel, or a massive building or something like that?
October 9th, 2011 at 11:49 am
@Danios: Hmm, now I think you may almost be making a game out of this monolith view. You say, “nary a single prominent Religious Zionist rabbi has ever called an Israeli siege of Palestinians sinful or blameworthy.” Okay, you’re going after my current pet topic, so I’ll bite. What about http://www.theshalomcenter.org/node/1351? This is part of a 28 January 2008 statement by Israeli rabbis (who certainly consider themselves religious Zionists):
“Targeting civilians tramples on these sacred values, whether it be the kassams falling on Sderot, Ashkelon and other Gaza border communities, or whether it be the great suffering Israel is causing to Gazans by preventing the delivery of diesel fuel and electricity. …
It is easy to maintain that the entire Palestinian people are legitimate targets because they support terrorists. It is easy to maintain that every Israeli is a legitimate target because our very presence robs the Palestinian people of their land. However, as Rabbi Shmuel Tamerat taught regarding the exodus from Egypt, even when a cause is just, any contact with violence transforms the victim into a victimizer. …
On page 70a we are taught that ‘When somebody comes to kill you, get up earlier and kill him/her first.’ Israel must take measures to stop those who are firing the rockets and those who give the orders. However, we learn on 74a that the person who kills somebody pursuing a third person to kill him/her is a murderer if s/he could have stopped the pursuer by any other means. Raba, one of the same talmudic rabbis who said that one must kill the person coming to kill you, was asked by one man what to do when the strong man of his village threatened that he would kill him if the man did not kill an innocent third person. Rabba answered, ‘Let yourself be killed rather than kill. Who is to say that your blood is redder than his.’
Even steps taken in the name of self-defense must meet three criteria: 1. They must achieve the goal. One can not violate human rights and cause suffering in order to allow one to feel that s/he is ‘doing something,’ if that something does not actually save life. 2. There is no less harmful way to achieve the same goal. 3. Innocent people are not killed.
The blockade and the firing of kassam rockets do not meet these criteria.”
Danios, I understand your intrest in reviewing the texts of all religions using the biased framework nearly always used by Islamophobes. But I think that your articles lose credibility when you follow the Islamophobic framework so exactly by taking some examples of horrible ideas and stating that they represent a whole movement and particularly when you say that there are no dissenting voices (okay, here you said no prominent dissenting rabbis).
I also hope that if/when you go on to look at things like the “Christian justification of ethnic cleansing of the Americas,” suggested above, or the Palestinian/Jordanian ethnic cleansing of Jews, including anti-Zionist Jews, from East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, you don’t provide just one side of the religious arguments used but present a broader perspective. I know that I would learn from that, just like readers here could learn from seeing the alternative Jewish views presented at Rabbis for Human Rights: http://www.rhr.org.il/home.php?language=en.
October 9th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
@ Just Stopping By:
I said “nary a single prominent Religious Zionist rabbi…”
Rabbis for Human Rights are considered by “mainstream” Religious Zionists to be a “far-left” radical group. So I’m not sure my choice of words was inappropriate. However, I’ll change it to “hardly.”
Rabbis for Human Rights in Israel itself confirms the “growing extremism of the Orthodox religious establishment,” which I am talking about:
The King’s Torah, far from being condemned by moderate rabbis, has been greeted with a general silence and enthusiastic support from a number of notable religious leaders.
Arik Ascherman, head of Rabbis for Human Rights in Israel, said the growing extremism of the the Orthodox religious establishment in Israel reflected the increasingly right-wing atmosphere in Israel that made the expression of ultra-nationalist views permissible.
In the current climate, he said, moderate rabbis were reluctant to speak out against their colleagues. Many of these rabbis belong to the Conservative or Reform streams of Judaism, which are not officially recognised in Israel.
“The religious sanction being given to the political right by these rabbis is dangerous. It makes their opinions seem more acceptable,” he said.
That is being reflected in public surveys, in which many Israeli Jews express support for anti-Arab views. A poll by the Israeli Democracy Institute published last week showed that 46 per cent of the country’s Jews did not want to live near Arab citizens, and 39 per cent felt the same about foreign workers.
Even more, 53 per cent, wanted Arab citizens to be encouraged to leave Israel and half believed Arabs should not have equal rights with Jews. Among the religious public, racist sentiments were more popular.
Israeli prosecutors, meanwhile, have turned a blind eye to the refusal of several prominent endorsers of The King’s Torah to obey a summons calling them for investigation. “Our holy Torah is not a subject for investigation or trial by flesh and blood,” the rabbis said.
In all, the rabbinical establishment is growing increasingly bold in promoting its vision of a Jewish state run according to holy law, according to Zvi Barel, a commentator with the daily newspaper Haaretz.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22339
October 9th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
@Danios:
Thanks. I certainly do not deny — and am horrified by — how the Israeli religious establishment has become more right-wing and more willing to make racist/Islamophobic/bigoted statements. Their calling opponents radical leftists is the same tactic used in the US and elsewhere, and I have strong objections to one group claiming to be the only true voice of a religion (or at least one that is not hierearchical by construction).
October 9th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Thank you for your feedback, Just Stopping By.
Certainly, that is the same situation in Muslim countries. Do not think that I deny that. The “Religious Establishment” of every religion is usually almost always pernicious.
October 9th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
I really don’t understand why Loonwatch is bagging on other faiths. I am a Muslim American and used to like this site for te way it highlighted Islamaphobia and bigotry. However, almost every time I go on the site there is a story of “what if this were a Muslim” or like this one–an analysis of the ‘incongruencies’ of other faiths. This is not conducive for the purpose of this website, and if anything is hypocritical by perpetuating misconceptions/generalizations of other faiths. What are you guys thinking?
October 9th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Here is my explanation:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/03/the-understanding-jihad-series-is-islam-more-likely-than-other-religions-to-encourage-violence/
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/10/why-religious-zionism-not-judaism-is-the-problem/
If you cannot understand after reading that, then what can I say?
October 9th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
Omar Abdul Kader
It isn’t bagging on other faiths. If you can’t understand why this is being done or why it’s necessary, then you don’t understand what the problem is.
This is one of the reasons, I say Muslims cannot fight Islamophobia effectively, and why i’m more than irritated at American Muslims.
You’re doing a wonderful job Danios, don’t let these type of comments put you off. Remember this is the best loon busting site because it doesn’t have the likes of Omar Abdul Kader at the head.
Sorry to be harsh, but it’s necessary here. To highlight an important point.
October 9th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
@Danios: Let me go with omar abdulkader for a bit here. I understand why you are writing in this style, and I support your right to do so without being unfairly tagged as bigoted. That’s an academic perogative.
But, this site also has a mission and I think that several commentators are asking if these types of articles are helping or hurting your goal of combating Islamophobia. Personally, while I find your articles interesting, if I had been deciding on the direction of the site, I would not have gone that route and certainly not with those articles taking up a substantial portion of the site. On the plus side, you are providing arguments and ammunition for your point of view. On the negative, it is clear that you are alienating some of your Muslim and Islamophile readership, that some of your readers seem to be accepting that you are describing a monolithic view of Jewish law that I find does not hold here in the US at least, and the site is becoming one to which I would not direct Islamophobes so that they can learn because they will claim that it is nothing but a hate site that adds the phrase “what if they were Muslim” or “see my disclaimer [in which I say that I won’t even try to understand Israelis” to what they would otherwise say are merely attempts to show that non-Muslims are bad people.
Also, the site has a new moderation policy, but given a lot of the recent material such as Halal Pork’s claims that he knows how various commentators smell, either nothing is being filtered or you are receiving comments that are nearly unimaginably vile. In a sense, you have the unfortunate result where you state that you moderate comments but let in a lot of nasty material, again making this a site that I would not direct people to unless I was pretty sure that they would already agree with you, lest they argue that it is a site that “approves” of such comments.
So, again, I don’t find anything improper about your motives, but one of the rules of writing is to know your audience. If you want to continue with this series, that’s up to you and Loonwatch, but you should at least be nice to commentators like omar abdulkader who are merely suggesting that they find this type of material undercuts the site’s effectiveness.
October 9th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
I’m going to have to reinforce what some others have been saying. One of the reasons I’ve been a lot less active on this site recently (it seems like some others have been absent as well, like NassirH) is that the articles seem to be veering off of LW’s original course. The main focus of this site was on debunking and deconstructing the nonsense from Geller, Spencer, as well as other clowns like Translating Jihad who pretty much all got their asses handed to them (deservedly so). It was primarily Danios’ articles that were responsible for this, and so he created a kind of notability for this site that brought attention and brought readers. Islamophobes despised it but knew it wasn’t to be trifled with, anti-loons (like me) invested time reading and dealing with the trolls, and I think a lot of fence-sitters were genuinely drawn in and maybe even persuaded.
Lately, though, the focus has been shifting pretty dramatically. A lot of the articles have turned towards politicized op ed pieces focusing on Glenn Greenwald’s articles or other material that at times make it feel like I’m reading a left-wing blog.
Some of the other articles, like this latest series, are more relevant to the original focus of the site, but, like others, I really think they’re unnecessary and will drive away potential readers. I didn’t object too strongly to the “Warrior Prophet” series. Even though the presentation was somewhat abrasive, the endeavor itself was a necessary one: to apply the same logic to the Bible as the loons do to the Qur’an. It turns the tables on the Islamophobes, puts them on the defensive and invariably shuts them up. That’s more of what we need to see.
I would agree that this series feels far too reminiscent of the kind of overgeneralization that this site has to constantly grapple with. Like Just Stopping By said, I doubt it’s going to change many people’s minds, particularly when you look at the imagery and rhetoric. As I explained in the other thread, I don’t think it’s really necessary to take this approach to expose the stupidity of the Islamophobes and convince rational people not to listen to them. However, it’s not my site and not my decision. It’s not technically Danios’ site either, though he’s the person who is most responsible for its success.
October 9th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Asalamu Alaykum
Brother “omar abdulkader”…you asked a very good question, and I agree with you on that ‘what if they are Muslim’ part. I wish we could condemn all acts of bigotry, hatred and racism without seemingly pointing out that it is not us.
However…respectfully brother, I disagree with you that this kind of article is ‘bagging on other faiths’ in this specific sence.
Information whether totally false, out of context, purposefully misleading, or other wise by people like Robert Spencer, Pam Geller and thier sort, have soaked thier way as ‘fact’ into the unknowing public discourse.
Most of the people who claim they hate Islam and Muslims, simply repeat what they have heard from the Ministry of Hate, and that has turned into fear which causes them to react against thier best interests.
The unknowing public are asking why Muslims are not speaking against the violence…but the problem is…we dont know how because we dont know what causes it.
Articles like this help Muslims get at the root causes of the things that hurt us most in the world. One of those things is the Israeli/Palsitinian conflict.
This article is not ‘bagging’ on Jewish people or thier religion, but simply tells us how…it isnt our religion that makes Israelis kill indoscriminatly…it is thier rules of war.
If the rule of war is like this, then the propaganda has to be tailored to fit the stradegy…that, there are no innocent Palistinians, and no Muslims who speak against the occupation…by default, according to thier rules…are combatants.
October 9th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
@Just Stopping By
“Israel must take measures to stop those who are firing the rockets and those who give the orders.”
Rather than dropping bombs on apartment buildings, Israel could stop the rockets by making peace.
There are and for a long time have been two ways to solve this conflict. One is a single, democratic state, and the other is the two state solution that is officially endorsed.
At one time, the Arabs were not going to agree, and I can understand reasons for that. But that was then, and in recent years the Arabs have agreed and reaffirmed their agreement for the 2-state solution. It’s not just the Palestinians, but the whole Arab league. There is ample documentation. Israel seems unwilling.
I have relatives who live in a village near the West Bank town of Tulkaram, and they are in their FOURTH generation of living as stateless persons with no political rights. I won’t recount to you all that has happened to them, but life under occupation is very difficult, as I’m sure you can imagine.
They supported the 2-state solution for almost 20 years and little has changed for the better. Gazans have it much worse, and you can reasonably argue that they live in an open air prison. We can’t ask them to “lie down and die quietly” as Hanan Ashrawi once said.
Israel is a tiny country, and it doesn’t seem like Israelis would want to live in that neighborhood with everyone despising them and wanting to kill them. I genuinely think it is in their own interest to end this conflict.
True friends of Israel should encourage them to make real peace. That will be a lot more effective in stopping the crude rockets of a desperate people than dropping bombs on them. Don’t you agree?
By the way, I really enjoy your thoughtful commentary and don’t want to be disrespectful. This is a sincere question because I would like to know your thoughts.
October 9th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
I am sorry…I hit the button before I finished…
We are understanding too, that it is not just Muslims that are seen as combatants. We saw Mr Brevik, who used the Ministry of Hate to write his manifesto, and went on a mission to murder ‘sympathisers’…and the haters applauded his evil act because they belived that those teens were combatants in thier war against Islam.
Let us understand that most Zionists are not Jewish, and not all Jewish people are Zionists…but, a Zionist believes, for whatever excuse he gives that Israel has a right to exist over and above anyone else by mandare of God.
October 9th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
@ JN:
It’s not technically Danios’ site either, though he’s the person who is most responsible for its success.
That’s flattering but undeserved. However, I am most responsible for shifting the site leftward, so actually I deserve “the blame.”
Yes, you are right to say that we’ve started covering foreign policy issues more, and I might also be responsible for this. (And yes, I am the die-hard Glenn Greenwald fan.) But this is no accident. I think the mainstream establishment will accommodate criticism of blatant Islamophobes and will also readily condemn “hate crimes,” etc. But it won’t allow you to question The Narrative.
The Narrative is responsible for producing and sustaining Islamophobia, and is Islamophobic in and of itself. America’s wars–which are fought to support The Narrative–can only be fought under the Islamophobic worldview. It is this that I believe we must challenge if we want to successfully trounce the menace of Islamophobia. It is the head of the beast.
October 9th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
No comment by Mindy1 eh? I note there’s a mistake in your title it should be “…Jewish Law is used to Justify Killing Civilians”.
October 9th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
@Nur Alia:
I agree with you that the best course is for the Israelis and the Palestinians to reach a peace agreement. I would support whatever they agree to, as long as neither side is doing so under military or other pressure.
Personally, I think that the solution that has the most potential is a two-state solution where we see the emergence of an independent Palestine with its capital in East Jerusalem. As for why it has not happened, I have my own views but mostly I blame both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership for each turning down viable offers from the other, as well as the extremists on both sides that want the other to disappear or that can’t see that the others are human beings deserving of the same respect and rights as themselves.
May your relatives and all in the region have a brighter future.
October 9th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Oops, I got confused and my last comment should be addressed to Talisman. But, that doesn’t change my views.
October 9th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
@ Just Stopping By:
I agree with you that the best course is for the Israelis and the Palestinians to reach a peace agreement. I would support whatever they agree to, as long as neither side is doing so under military or other pressure.
I may be reading too much into your comment (and correct me if I am wrong) but it seems that you are insisting that the two sides “work it out among themselves” instead of referring the matter to the international community in order to settle the matter according to international law (“other pressure”?).
For peace to be attained, all that is needed is to use the yardstick of international law: this would involve Israel ending its illegal occupation and completely withdrawing from the Occupied Territories, including the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. The refugees must be granted the right of return or compensated
Yes, the Arabs must recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist–not this new bull**** demand for it to be accepted as a “Jewish State.” Furthermore, the Arabs have to recognize Israel’s right to live in peace and security with its neighbors. Here, however, I’d point out that everyone always falls over themselves trying to strike some moral equivalence between the Israelis (the occupiers) and the Palestinians (the occupied). So it’s always phrased “Israelis must do this…and Palestinians have to do this…” This, even though Palestine has a “right to live in peace and security” just as much Israel has the “right to live in peace and security.” This, even though Israel denies a Palestinian state, while the Israeli state exists. This even though three times as many Palestinian civilians are killed than Israeli civilians….So yes, Arabs must respect the right of Israelis to live in peace and security, but Israelis need to understand this too.
The idea of the two sides working it out “for themselves” is an Israeli ploy to ensure that it is the weak, oppressed Palestinians negotiating with the powerful, occupying power. Palestinians should not be forced to give up anything more than they already have. Every single inch of Palestine was theirs, until the Zionists came and stole the land. Now, the Palestinians are desperately struggling for the last 22% of the land that their ancestors lived on. Would you have them negotiate with the remaining 22%
they have nowhave a hope of obtaining?From your statement about East Jerusalem, you probably don’t think so….but certainly you can see the problem with supporting “whatever they agree to.” Surely, you can see why I’d be concerned with the Palestinian leadership being put under immense pressure to accept “peace” terms. This has already occurred on numerous occasions, and the Palestinian Papers reveal that the Palestinian leadership has been ready to sell out its people.
As for why it has not happened, I have my own views but mostly I blame both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership for each turning down viable offers from the other,
I have enjoyed your respective feedback on this site, so I say this with due respect to you: I do find it a bit troubling that you strike a moral equivalence between occupier and occupied. What Israel needs to offer is what I have outlined above. It has never done so. So, it cannot possibly be said that the Palestinians turned down a “viable offer.” Can you cite an example of a “viable offer” that the Palestinians refused?
I am critical of the Palestinian leadership, but NOT for the conventional Israeli/American wisdom that they turned down legitimate offers of peace, but rather the exact opposite: they have been selling out the rights of their people, thereby serving the function of any lackey-to-a-colonial-power government.
The situation of the Palestinians and Israelis is exactly analogous to the American Indians and the European settlers. Looking back, one would be (rightfully) scorned for striking any moral equivalence between the occupied (the American Indians) and the occupier (European settlers). The same should be the case here.
* * * * *
Here are some relevant words from Dr. Norman Finkelstein:
There has been, since roughly the mid 1970s, you could say for the past three decades, there’s been a consensus in the international community on how to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. And the consensus, I suspect, is familiar to everybody in this room — it’s called the Two-State Settlement. It’s not two States anywhere and of any shape. The two States have very specific meaning under international law. A fundamental principle of the United Nations Charter, as anchored in article two of the UN Charter, is that it’s inadmissible to acquire territory by war or by force. You can’t change countries’, nations’ borders simply through the imposition of force. For those of you who know the technical side of the Israel-Palestine conflict, you know that a famous UN Resolution 242 from November 1967 lists out the basic principles for resolving the conflict at the very top. The first principle listed is the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war.
That principle was upheld in the recent 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, the World Court. That means concretely that Israel has to “fully” withdraw from the territory acquired during the June 1967 war, for our purposes in particular, the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Why? Because all of those territories were acquired in the course of a war and under international law you have no privy whatsoever to territory acquired in the course of a war. Now, no Israeli party, no Israeli government, no Israeli official has ever acknowledged a full withdrawal from the Occupied Territories. And we know that because the record, as I said, is quite clear. Every year, for the past 20 years, the United Nations, usually around December, has a resolution called Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question. Every single year. And every single year the vote is exactly the same. It’s the whole world on one side, I’ll quote to you from this year, the last vote was December 2005… It was 156 to 6, the whole world on one side and on the other side — I should just point out that this resolution calls for a Two-State Settlement on the June 1967 border — it’s the United States, Israel and depending on the year, it’s some variation of Palau, Nauru, Tuvalu, Micronesia and the Martial Islands. That’s seven all together but usually one drops out. Each year they grow… [inaudible]… depending on who gets paid that year. [audience laughter] It’s the whole world on the one hand, the United States and Israel on the one hand and those South Sea …[inaudible]… on the other hand. And the record has been that way, you know, if you take the year 1989, it was 151 to 3, the three then were the US, Israel and the island State of Dominica. Dominica still comes in and out, you know like Grenada is also another major super power [audience laughter] … [inaudible] … depending on the year. And it’s always been the United States and Israel who have opposed that Two-State Settlement.
October 9th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
“So, it cannot possibly be said that the Palestinians turned down a “viable offer.” Can you cite an example of a “viable offer” that the Palestinians refused?”
I was about to ask @Just Stopping BY that very same question.
October 9th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
@Danios (and @Géji):
I wouldn’t insist (had I any power) that the two sides work it out themselves. If they were willing to abide by the ruling of some international court or other body, that’s fine with me. However, I think that if such a body declares its own opinion without both sides’ agreement then that result will probably simply be another piece of paper because at least one side won’t abide by it and no one will make them do so. I also think that even if they were forced to do so, there would be enough resentment on at least one side that the result would not hold.
I agree that the Arabs shouldn’t have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and that the Israelis do have to recognize the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, including having their own independent state if that is what they wish.
Would I have the Palestinians negotiate with the 22% they have or hope to have? I’m not sure that it matters where one starts as long as everyone agrees at the end point. If it’s easiest to start with the 1967 lines, fine with me. Ultimately, I think that because the Palestinians are the ones most likely to be be resentful at the result, there is a need for the final agreement to be generous to them, meaning weighted in their favor. I have no firm position on what that means in practice other than the Palestinians have to feel that they received a good deal.
Danios says, “Surely, you can see why I’d be concerned with the Palestinian leadership being put under immense pressure to accept ‘peace’ terms.” And that’s why I started by saying neither side should be under military or other pressure.
As for the viable offer, US diplomat Dennis Ross wrote that Saudi Prince Bandar said of the 2000 offer, “If Arafat does not accept what is available now, it won’t be a tragedy, it will be a crime.” That seems to make it at least viable. If the offer was as Ross describes it (contiguous Palestinian state within the West Bank plus Gaza, Palestinian sovereignty over the above-ground area of the Temple Mount / Sharam ash-Sharif with Israeli sovereignty below, Palestinians give up 7 to 8% of their territory in return for an area equivalent to 2% of their territory), that’s at least a viable starting point. The later Olmert offer was supposedly even more generous to the Palestinians, with the area of the land swaps being identical in at least some reporting. My baseline would be a one-for-one land swap, but I think that the Palestinians should have publicly said that they would accept the 2000 offer and/or the Olmert offer if the land swaps were simply made identical (and based on mutually agreed upon areas to be swapped). If it came down to a public battle over whether the Palestinians should get the 22% they sort-of have now only 21%, I think the pressure on Israel to concede would have been huge. Based on what has been reported about the Olmert offer being one-for-one, that would seem to have been viable.
October 9th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
I think this series as well as the other understanding jihad series should have a index page that puts all links into one. It looks messy to quote so many different links to simply bring to the attention a series or share it with others.
And i fully agree that this method of showing how a huge log is sticking in the eye of islamophobes is very important. The islamophobes spend their jobless lives 24/7 to whine over Islam this and Islam that. By bringing attention of audience to the log in their eyes, it in one shot explains their hypocritical methodology and standards, prevents Islamophobes from again making these arguments as they quite know that they would by using that idiotic argument open themselves to barrage of questions that they themselves have to defend and would take away their time from their stinking lives in removing the huge log in their own eyes. Muslims dont have to spend their entire lives defending & deconstructing attacks while Islamophobes quite happily keep throwing rocks and manufacturing fancy slogans and lies fearing no consequences. When the islamophobes realise they are in glass house they themselves will think twice before throwing rocks and even if they throw the rocks they only end up breaking their own house.
October 9th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
@ Just Stopping By:
As for the viable offer, US diplomat Dennis Ross wrote that Saudi Prince Bandar said of the 2000 offer, “If Arafat does not accept what is available now, it won’t be a tragedy, it will be a crime.” That seems to make it at least viable…
Please click here to listen to Dr. Norman Finkelstein’s debate with Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, in which he responds to what you just said. He refutes “the Dennis Ross interpretation” starting at 7:12, although you should listen to it from the beginning of the clip. Please note that because of the 10 minute limit on YouTube, the video continues in part 3. During this debate, the Former Israeli Foreign Minister admits: “If I were a Palestinian, I would have rejected Camp David,” a quote that is certainly more relevant than that of the Saudi despot and lackey to America.
October 10th, 2011 at 7:10 am
@Danios:
1. Oops. I said “Sharam ash-Sherif” when I meant Haram. I think that I was too preoccupied trying to get the “the” right and it threw me off.
2. I note that you don’t dispute what I said about the Olmert offer. I take that as a victory!
3. With regard to Camp David, you claim an American’s view and a statement by an Israeli (stating that the offer was not sufficient for the Palestinians) and I claim another American’s view and a statement by a Saudi (saying that the offer was generous to the Palestinians). To me that sounds like the offer was in the ballpark. Ultimately, you are arguing based on what you think is legally correct and I am arguing based on what I think is realistic politically. I admire and respect your position as one of principle, though it does lead to the somewhat bizarre conclusion that because territory should not change hands due to war you want an outcome that is based on the cease-fire lines following the change of territory in an earlier war. You, of course, also run the risk that you get some panel that contains someone with unreported Dershowitz-like views who rules against the Palestinians. But I assume you recognize the pros and cons of your view and, as I said, I think it is principled but I think that unless both sides agree to it (which I do not see happening), you may wind up with a brilliant ruling worthy of framing but no actual Palestinian state.
October 10th, 2011 at 9:21 am
I want to correct something…I seem to be correcting all the time.
In the case of the Palistinian petition in the UN…it is NOT that they are seeking to be recognized as a ‘state’ because, many nations already recognize the Palistinians as a state. This is the Israeli narrative, and should not be repeated.
What Palistine wants is…to be a full member of the UN, just like Israel and the United States. They want to have the same protections, rules, oversite, and legal parity that everyone else enjoys in the world that promotes peace and unity.
The Palistinians want to be able to bring thier grievences and concerns to the UN, rather than use violence. They want to be able to defend thier right to exist, just like the Israelis demand from them…excpet they want to do it in a peaceful, legal, civilised setting.
This is actually what the US and Israel do not want to give the Palistinians…the right protest and bring thier grievences…especially concerning Israel to a legal forum where they have parity guarunteed under UN law.
October 10th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
@Nur Alia
As-Salamu Alaykum,
As far as whether Palestine is a state, that depends on how you define it. Yes, Palestine declared statehood and I believe 65% of all countries recognize it as such.
But that does not make it officially a state in the UN, and that is not trivial. If Palestine were a full fledged state like Israel, it would have implications under international law, for example.
As I have said before, I have relatives who live on the West Bank and they are stateless persons with no citizenship. If they were citizens of Palestine, they would have a universally recognized passport.
Palestine deserves to be a state in the SAME WAY that Israel is a state, with full rights and everything that goes with that. If you want to say it IS a state but just one that is not recognize universally, that’s fine. But I am waiting for it to be official.
October 10th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
Talisman…
If it was a rule that all nations recognise Palistine as a ‘state’, then Israel would not be recognised as a state either, nor any nation that does not belong to the UN.
The nation I live in does not recognize Israel as a state, but does recognise Palistine. We do not ignore that Israel is ‘there’…but as it was explained to me, in the country where I live, Israel is much like the Chinese neighbourhood I live in in relation to the city I live in…which means, this is a defacto (because it is like this) Chinese neighbourhood, but de jure (by law) part of the city.
Let us understand that the ‘state’ cant grant you your God given right to be free, they can, however, take it away, which is what happens in the occupied Palistinian lands…Israelis take the rights away from the citizens. Even the UN cant recognise a power to supercede the right of an individual to exist…so the notion of ‘recognising Israel’ is…again, a false Israeli notion…as, we can’t recognise a power that takes away the rights of an indivudual.
The UN can’t grant a ‘state’ the right to exist, nor the right to be independant. The UN, under the laws, rules, regulations, oversight, and justice system can grant a state the right to be protected under those things. This is what Palistine is asking for…not for the right to become a state (the Israeli narrative) but the right to have protections, oversight, legal parity, and a say in world affairs, just like Israel and everyone else.
So…anyone who is against the petition of Palistine to be given full UN member status is actually against the Palistinian right to be protected, and have a peaceful, legal way to resolve thier grievences with thier neighbours.
The Palistninans understand that…in order for them to have peace, they must have justice…and there is no such thing as ‘negotiation’ with an occupier, and no such thing as peace imposed on you by someone else.
October 11th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
@Nur Alia
“The Palistninans understand that…in order for them to have peace, they must have justice.”
There is no justice in having “Palistastans” at the mercy of Israel, just like South African Bantustans.
Palestine is a state? You say sweet potato, and I say yam. The facts on the ground are the same as they have been.
For the record, I stopped supporting the two-state solution years ago.