“Beyond polls, individual incidents, and cultural products, the entirety of Gazan society appears to be built around resisting Israel and achieving political ends. Observers have pointed out that Hamas came to power in 2006 and hasn’t held an election since, but there appears to have been no pressure from within Palestinian society to moderate with regards to Israel, or even put forward demands to gain independence, and surveys show that public opinion in Gaza remains uncompromising and militant. While Hamas may have lost some popularity over the years since winning the election of 2006, there is little evidence that Palestinians dislike them for being too extreme, and the approval ratings of groups that are even more radical are actually higher. Dictators face pressure from public opinion all the time, and in the case of Palestinian leaders and what posture to take regarding Israel, it is always towards being more belligerent and never in favor of taking steps to make people’s lives better.”
I think you're making a very true point. I'd just add that I think a lot of the blame should go to UNRWA, human rights groups, and Palestinian supporters worldwide who constantly pump them up with talk about how 'Israel is illegitimate' and 'they are victims of colonization' which goads them to be militant and uncompromising instead of looking for common ground and a solution.
yes, once the Palestinians became one of the Left's sacred victims they stopped being a people and became a Cause. And the first purpose of any Cause is to meet the psychic, emotional, spiritual and political needs of the acolytes of the Cause. In this case that means unhinged denunciations of the Jewish state (as these really get the blood flowing and make you feel holier-than-thou), excuses for every stupid or ugly deed committed by the sacred victims (as they are never subjects but only objects, beneath agency and responsibility) and a desire for some apocalyptic revenge scenario that they can cheer and proclaim as Justice (it's easy to cheer bloodshed when it's not your blood or the blood of anyone you love).
Thus the international Left are the worst enablers of the Palestinians, the equivalent of the person who keeps buying booze for an alcoholic.
God save us all from ever becoming a Cause! It only means you suffer while other people preen over the wreckage.
Quite some historical revisionism you did there. The unholy alliance between left and Islamism is rather recent. You seem to forget that in the wake of the 6 day war, much of the fascination for Israel came from the left, they came in droves to pick fruits in kibbutzim.
Palestinians became the throwing tool of the Arabs, were financed by Arabs and not any left, and when the Arabs got tired of the Palestinians, sadly many in the left became blind to this people who incarnate the most non liberal values in the world.
Explaining everything as right and left is ok for children, grown up people should be able to nuance a bit more their opinions and analyses.
The Palestinians have been a sacred cause for this thing we call the "Left" since the days of Baader-Meinhof and Munich 72...."rather recent" I guess historically but still over 50 yrs ago.
"Explaining everything as right and left"—I didn't mention the "Right" nor try to "explain everything", I just stated a fact and interpreted it.
After Israel traded their kibbutzim to become a modern Western capitalist country allied with America, and once the Soviets turned on Israel and created the "Zionism is racist imperialism" narrative, the Western Left became full backers of the Palestinian (anti-Israel) cause.
This is exemplified by modern Leftists like Chomsky, Butler, Naomi Klein et al and even goes back to I.F. Stone:
—Israel, he charged, was “racial and exclusionist,” a site of “moral myopia” and “Lilliputian nationalism,” and a sad refutation of Jewish universality. “The greatness of the Prophets lay in their overcoming of ethnocentricty,” he claimed. “Here lie the roots of growing divergence between Jew and Israeli; the former with a sense of mission as a Witness in the human wilderness, the latter concerned only with his own tribe’s welfare.”
There's a great book about all this: "The Lions' Den" Susie Linfield 2019
"This inability ... to consider that one’s approach has been harmful to one’s own cause"
See the Hadith in which Muhayyisah on orders of muhammad kills his Jewish business buddy without concern that he's destroying a major source of income.
This is a very important thing to bear in mind when trying to "engage" these types, whether Arabs/Muslims themselves or their Western apologists. Leave aside that they readily believe in the worst sort of lies, in AI images, and so on, the fundamental worldview is so different that there's simply no breaking through. On the Arab side, "You're killing your own kids!" can be met with "Good." Meanwhile, the Western Left is so wedded to their Marxist concepts of race and class and colonialism and so on- concepts in which, surprise surprise, Jews are always the bad guy (as they were for Marx himself)- that making such an obvious point as "You're supporting the murder of innocent people!" will be met with "They're not innocent."
Defenders of Israel need to break free of the comfortable myths we have, the desperate hope that all human beings are good peaceful democrats, that we're all alike apart for some superficial differences, of Anne Frank's "In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart." That's not necessarily true. And then move on to those who *can* be convinced, even if you don't like their politics or their religion.
I sometimes try pointing this out to Jews caught up in long “shakla v’taryas” with Palestinians who essentially ignore anything the Jews say, and just chant Genocide!…
… and it’s remarkable what resistance there is— it’s like *I’m* some coarse thug, interrupting a sophisticated dialogue between 2 enlightened individuals who happen to see things very differently.
I suspect some of those Jews (often the type who still like to call themselves ”centrists”… In a world where anyone unequivocally supporting Israel is labeled “Right Wing” why would you call yourself a centrist??)—are way too invested in their self-image as ultra-rational intellectuals who are better than the rest of us, who may occasionally resort to, ahem, salty language when faced with an ignorant idiot, expressing admiration for mass-murdering terrorists…
There are plenty of suppprters of Israel who are not right wing. Ritchie Torres represents me in Congress. Just yesterday I sent him a campaign contribution.
Richie Torres—a man of rare political courage & integrity— is totally an outlier in the Democratic Party. This, of course, does not mean he is right wing.
But no, there are NOT “plenty” of LW supporters.
What there may be plenty of is people who, for reasons, political, personal, or unknown, CLAIM to support Israel—but their idea of supporting Israel is to bully it into a premature ceasefire (3 months into the Gaza war!); to relentlessly pressure Israel—but never the Palestinians—to make compromises for peace, while ignoring the the many compromises and enormous sacrifices, Israelis have made for peace in the past…
Lefties for Israel are much like Lefties who claim to love America: they never actually love anything about it, or anything it has done in the past or the present… They do not love it.
Even this sort of wishy-washy, unhelpful liberal “support” for Israel is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Whatever being a liberal progressive may [or may not] have once meant, it has been completely colonized by the radical Left, which is against everything decent & good about America & Israel
Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024: Democratic Yeas 173 Nays 37. It was Trump, not Biden, who bullied Israel into accepting the ceasefire.
Just say "I am right wing". You don't have to justify it by claiming that your political opponents other issues are anti-Israel. Own your opinions.
I'm neither "justifying" anything, nor interested in snarky-teen-on-Reddit-style BS about "owning my opinions". I certainly do own 'em—unlike those progressive Jews still desperately trying to reconcile being useful idiots for the Democratic Party that despises them, even as they insist they're really pro-Israel.
Also unlike Lefties who whitewash all the many sins of the Left, and demonize everything & everyone on the Right, I have no mindless allegiances or cultish loyalties to any party or political movement. I lean Right as long as the Right &/or the GOP continue to more or less align with my values; also, at this point in time, the Republican party is not just more pro-Israel, but the only party that's not actively anti-Israel (as is blindingly obvious to all, whether or not they admit it)…
…That's why I immediately criticized both Trump and those Trump-besotted Jews on the Right who idiotically hailed the ceasefire as the first act of "Trump Come To Israel's Rescue" (it was anything but).
But even as the ceasefire does not feel like a triumph, it is pretty clear there's a much bigger picture here: Netanyahu was likely unhappy about the pressure from America, but there's no question he extracted a price in terms of ongoing & future support & cooperation from Trump's administration—assurances the Democrats would NEVER have provided, let alone actually fulfilled.
All those Lefty Jews who care so darn much about Israel will be weirdly discombobulated when things [hopefully] go well for Israel with Trump, because that type of Jew—the type who STILL idiotically insists that politicians like Obama, Biden, Blinken & Schumer have Israel's best interests in mind—is only good at wringing their hands for Israel with performative concern; the thought of a victorious, ascendant Israel makes them squirm nervously.
Vance and Rubio voted against Biden's $15 billion aid package, because Trump opposed it.
I had expected Vance to be an isolationist who didn't care about Israel, but Rubio had been one of Israel's strongest supporters for years. He sold his soul, and Israel. Neither Trump, nor Vance, nor Rubio have ever been considered Lefties.
"he Western Left is so wedded to their Marxist concepts of race and class and colonialism "
Not that I am a fan of the Left in the US these days -- I contributed to four opponents of Squad members last year and we defeated two of them -- but Marxism just isn't a major thing in the US today. It may never have been other than in certain irrelevant intellectual circles. In 29 1/2 years as a professor, I have never met a professor who is a Marxist. (I do know one anarchist prof.) Also, race isn't a Marxist thing. Marx thought it was all about class.
Colonialism long predated capitalism. And when Russia became communist, it kept the colonial possessions of the Russian Empire. The Russian conquest and colonization of the area east of the territory of the Khanate of Sibir was every bit as brutal as that of the Spanish and Portuguese conquerors of the Western Hemisphere. The later conquest and colonization of Central Asia wasn't as brutal; the worst period for Central Asia would be later, hypocritically under the supposedly anti-colonialist communists.
There is another western opinion, that of Gen. William T. Sherman. He often described how horrible war is and how it was better to make it as cruel as possible so that it would end as quickly as possible. His famous marches of destruction through Georgia and South Carolina probably shortened the American Civil War by two years. I write that as the direct descendant of South Carolina Confederates who probably directly observed and may have even experienced Sherman's rampage. The Confederates of South Carolina and Georgia were the most warmongering in the entire short-lived unlamented country; they earned the destruction as did Hamas. Unfortunately, Hamas still rules Gaza while the Confederate States of America ceased to exist on November 6, 1865, when the last Confederate military unit, the CSS Shenandoah, surrendered.
Thanks for the nuanced exposition. I thought social media would lead to global enlightenment, and yet people seem to be more entrenched than ever. Just see the comments, where some say "leftie" as an explanation for all evil in the world, and sometimes the opposite.
The use of words like Marxism, without knowing what Marxism is, as you say.
I suppose it is easier than having to keep changing your views, and admit that politicians you appreciate do things you don't appreciate. A black and white world it of course easier, but those who subscribe to such a doctrine are easily manipulated. Like the capitol rioters, among others.
Many known they are telling lies, but they don't care whether true or not, they care whether others believe it or not.
It took me some time to understand how a society that puts so much emphasis on honour can be so blatantly shameless at the same time.
I have worked with absolutely wonderful Arabs that I grew to appreciate and trust (professionally), but I have also experienced many just lying in my face and denying their lie a second later.
More to the point, the analogy is completely off, considering that Israel is, thank God, not currently engaged in fighting a world power many times more powerful than it.
It's not so much the that analogy is off, it's that it's flipped: as R' Slifkin points out in the post, modern Israel is analogous to the Romans. Not saying that to judge Israel, but there's definitely an analogy on some level
As reflected in my comment elsewhere on this thread, if we consider that the Arabs of British Mandate Palestine were offered a state before 1948, one could say that the British were analogous to the Romans. The Arab League's refusal (the "three no's") in 1967 and Arafat's refusal in 2000 are just continuations of that intransigence.
1. There are NO "palestinians". "palestine" as a distinct muslim/arab counrty NEVER existed, and G-D willing, will never exist, and therefore there are no "palestinians". it's a countinustion of the israeli-arab war.
2. you are falling into the same fallacy all "rational" (pun intended) westerns fall into - that your rational way of thinking is akin to the way muslim/arabs think and want. they don't want peace, they don't want a good life, raise childern, go to work etc. they want you DEAD, nothing else. please refer the hamas charter (available on-line).
This argument is outdated. It might have held some weight decades ago, but it is no longer accurate. Millions of people have identified as Palestinians for decades now, and denying this reality is simply incorrect
There's another problem. And that's with the whole "We're the true original inhabitants of the country".
The story of a returning diaspora may not exist outside of Israel. Italian-Americans don't return to Italy, and the Back to Africa was a failure, etc.
While קיבוץ גלויות may be one our great contemporary miracles, it may carry a frightful message for others. Should the Turks fear the return of the original Anatolians? Should nationalistic Scots make way for a return of the Picts? Has Trump seen the last of the Mohicans? The problem with claiming our status as the original inhabitants is that it negates the national existence of so many other peoples who are relative newcomers to the lands that they identify with.
The same thing goes with the concept that the Palestinians are not a real people. Sure, there's truth there. Because so many other ethnic groups came into existence rather late in history. They just only a few centuries more "real" than the Palestinians.
Maybe it would be more effective to cite the first Rashi in חומש. It implies no threat to other Johnny-come-lately ethnic groups in their conquered and adopted land.
Two things to clarify. First is that the Jews did not return and demand a land that belonged to others. There was no sovereign nation here.
Second, the Palestinians have no ethnic identity that is any different from Levantine Arabs in surrounding countries. Jordan itself is historically part of Palestine.
True, but that's irrelevant to the point being made here. The point being made is that it's unreasonable to state that "Palestinian identity is nonsense, because it's only ~130 years old", when lots of analogous accepted identities are younger than that
Why should they have sympathy for those with a national identity many times older than theirs? They have more in common with the latter-day people who identify themselves as Palestinians.
That's why pedigree and authenticity is not going make a convincing argument.
This issue is being framed incorrectly here. Part of the glaringly obvious problem with the Palestinians' belatedly discovered peoplehood is…
1. Notwithstanding some early references to "Palestinians" maybe 100 years ago, it was not until decades later—well after Israel had successfully defended itself from a pan-Arab invasion at its birth, and began to grow & thrive & build its society, after Israel demonstrated repeatedly that it would not be conquered by Arab armies—it was only then that the Palestinians embraced this new identity… They suddenly "became' a people—in a land in which the society & state of Israel were already an existing reality.
You can't just declare yourself a people and then retroactively claim indigenous rights to the land in which you just now became a people.
2. Even as the Palestinians suddenly became a people right before everyone's eyes… they simultaneously try to pass themselves off as an ancient, indigenous people, the real inhabitants of the Promised Land—descendants of the Canaanites, or the Pilishtim, or the Real Jews, or… the bu||$hit never ends, and it isn't just ignorant youths on social media; their leaders spew the same offensively stupid drivel.
In most contexts, I’m inclined to agree with you. It’s one of Israel’s biggest tactical mistakes, conceding this point decades ago.
But they did, and here we are.
Still, it’s fair to point out, strongly & often, that the whole Palestinian “culture“ and “identity“ is built around opposition to Israel, phony claims of victimization by Israel, and antisemitism.
You can challenge anyone—certainly 100% of the ignorant wokelings who “passionately” support “Palestine”— to define the “Palestinian identity” in terms that predate, or simply don’t rely on, the existence of Israel.
I find it a very effective line against the many mindless pro-Palestinian trolls online. I’ve never once heard a response.
Of course as we’ve all been saying here, actually responding rationally to anything is not part of their culture.
So maybe that’s the answer: being Palestinian means never having to say you’re sorry… or anything else that makes any sense whatsoever!
'to define the “Palestinian identity” in terms that predate, or simply don’t rely on, the existence of Israel.'
The Palestinian identity emerged in late Ottoman times, promoted initially by Arabic-speaking Christians opposed to Ottoman rule and the hegemony of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople. From the beginning they were anti-Zionist, but they were more anti-Turkish. Turkish rule ended in 1917 and Turkish sovereignty ended in 1924. The State of Israel would not exist for decades.
"The Palestinian identity emerged in late Ottoman times"
More likely, began to emerge.
I refer you again to Crum's Behind the Silken Curtain. There he cites Philip Hitti who saw the concept of Palestine as a region artificially separated out of Syria and then, by dint of its separateness, associated with Jews. That was in the late 40s at which time the so-called Palestinian identity had not yet crystalized.
so if millons of people identify as "palestinians" ( a doubtfull stament, since they thenselves admit in closed circles they are arabs. moreover. they can't be palestinians, since there is no "p" in arabic...), then we should keep on with a charade and base our decisions on myths and falsehoods ?
It's not a charade - they identify as Palestinians. The argument from the fact that there's no "P" in Arabic is absurd; they simply pronounce it as "Falastine." It's like arguing that I can't identify as Ashkenazi, because Ashkenaz means something else in the Bible. The meaning of words change over time, and identities change over time, some slowly, some rapidly.
And being Arab is not contradictory to this identity. People naturally have multiple layers to their identity. For instance, I identify as male, Jewish, white, Ashkenazi, American-Israeli, and so on
Of course it's a charade. They say it temselves. I suggest you watch the videos at Memri.
The "p" story is at the heart of the issue. Palestine is a name given to the area 2000 years ago by the Romans. It proves that that Arabs have no connection to the area, whatsoever.
One more important point - the whole concept of nationality, states and borders is totaly foregin to the muslim menatlity. It's a foreign concept imposed on the middle east by the Europeans. Arabs identify as Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians etc, only for the sake of the idiots in the West. Their ultimate goal is not states, but a global Islamic empire, beginning with the Middle east and on-going today in Europe.
"Palestine is a name given to the area 2000 years ago by the Romans. It proves that that Arabs have no connection to the area, whatsoever."
While it's true that the name 'Palestine' was given to the region by the Romans around 2000 years ago, this etymological fact doesn't negate the deep historical connection of Palestinian Arabs to the land. Many Palestinian families have lived in this region for countless generations, with some likely descended from ancient inhabitants, including Jews. Just as identities evolve - like how my family has identified as Ashkenazi for over 800 years - Palestinians have embraced this identity over the past century-plus. The key point is that cultural and national identities transform over time, independent of a name's historical origins
Now you’re the one making a leap. Some Palestinians may indeed have very long roots in the land… But many—and likely most—do not. The famously high growth rate of the Palestinian population over the past century is more than just interesting—it’s incredible, and in fact, has very little credibility, if not acknowledging significant Arab immigration from neighboring Arab countries.
“Palestinians” includes Arabs from surrounding countries who immigrated at a time when being from this or the Arab state meant very little in the life of the average Arab.
And again, “embracing an identity” surely involves more than passionately hating the people who are now, RETROACTIVELY, “occupying” the land that your newly embraced identity suggests you own!
Putting aside the hypocritical hate—why aren’t they marching outside the Jordanian embassy??—Palestinians have done virtually nothing in their alleged 100 years of peoplehood to actually build a state or a normal society.
that is simply not true. the first arabs arrived in israel in 638, not countless generations ago....they don't have, and never had "deep hisrical connections". the arabs were nomads, and drifted in and out of israel. the first time a significant arab population drifted here was during late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, when jews came here and started cultivating this barren wasteland. there was suddenly work....
Your argument about P vs F should embarrass you. The P and F are the same letter in the Hebrew alphabet. And you know that. You probably don't know that in both Indo-European and Semitic languages, consonant shifts between P and F are remarkably common. In fact it was the very first important finding of the then new discipline of historical linguistics, now known as Grimm's law, after Jacob Grimm who publicized it (and also wrote fairy tales with his brother).
Sorry to disappont you, but I'm not embrasased. Your linguistic knowledge is very impressive. However, the point is that Palestine can't be an arab name. It's a name used by the Romans (yes, I'm repeating myself) and has nothing to do with ANY arab population
If you’re saying Palestinians are not deeply committed to an independent identity as Palestinians (versus Syrians, Egyptians, Lebanese, etc.) you’re probably on to something—the fact that over the entire course of their short history, they have done virtually zero to build a society of any kind highlights that.
But this whole argument about the letter P, and the fact that “Pilishtim” in the Torah are not connected to today’s Palestinians is mostly useless & beside the point. It does NOT “prove” that they have no connection to the area—it simply is not a proof that they DO have a historical connection (it’s one of their silliest claims to begin with).
The Roman province of Arabia was nearby. Petra was its capital. I think its official name was Arabia Petraea. The people from there are mentioned in 1 Maccabees.
from 638. the point is that arabs have nomaded in and out of israel, never attaching themselves to the area and never establishing a state. over the last 100 years, a new "palestiniain" identity was invented
""palestine" as a distinct muslim/arab counrty NEVER existed"
And that is true for numerous other national groups. The Kurds are one example, The Roma are another. You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to alternative facts.
All true. And sometimes, a people—and the rest of the world—all agree that they “deserve” to have a state of their own. It is contingent on their ability to sustain a viable state internally, defend it, and coexist reasonably with the other extant states in the world.
Never has any other group in history demonstrated as thoroughly, decisively & repeatedly, over nearly as century, their complete unfitness to have a state of their own.
Literally no one deserves a state LESS than the Palestinian population, which has always supported inhumane terrorism, has done zero to try to build a healthy society or develop infrastructure, & for the most part, do not lift the finger to improve their own lives, or the lives of their children.
Palestinian terrorism long predated the fabricated narratives about occupation, resistance, etc. On the other hand, when different Arab states held (or, as in the case of Jordan, currently hold), control over “Palestinian” territories, the Palestinians don’t talk much about THAT occupation—this alone highlights the fact that they’re all about hating Israel, more than “fulfilling Palestinian aspirations” or other totally vague formulations.
You have done an impressive research, which is totally irrelevant to my point.
I'm not talking about genetic or genealogical linkage. I'm not disputing the fact these linkages can be found.
I'm talking about the IDENTITY. No one until 100 years ago identified himself as Palestinian. Palestine was the name the league of nations gave it to Britain ad a mandate, NOT AS A MUSLIM COUNTRY.
It's definitely a function of their honor-shame culture. Fighting against a much stronger opponent gains honor, even if you suffer devastation. (People said that after the First Gulf War. Did Saddam Hussein really think he was able to defeat the United States? But Arab culture respects fighting against a much stronger enemy, even if it's futile.)
Also, Abbas is viewed by them as an Israeli lackey for not having the backbone to join the "armed resistance". Israel performed the Disengagement, partially in order to bolster Abbas' standing, to show that non-resistance brings results. Instead, Hamas said that their armed resistance was what led to Israel giving up on holding onto Gaza, and Hamas' steadfastness was what forced Israel to perform the Disengagement!
I'm grateful to Rabbi Slifkin for posing these questions to Palestinians, to see how they really think. I've seen it when they give interviews on Western media, most notably Piers Morgan. It's infuriating how they flip the fault for their suffering onto Israel, instead of their 100+ years of intransigence! If they would ever compose a Muslim equivalent to על חטא, it would be very short!
"Did Saddam Hussein really think he was able to defeat the United States?"
There are Jews who think that Israel could defeat Iran, a country with 8x the population and 80x the land area, and a larger economy, in addition to powerful allies.
What is meant by "defeating Iran"? Israel would suffice with getting rid of Iran's ability to attack us, or just deterrence. Israel certainly doesn't intend to conquer Iran.
The US objective in the First Gulf War was to make Saddam Hussein leave Kuwait. That objective was achieved.
No, it's pretty simple. Iran has a small number of nuclear enrichment, missile, and similar facilities. Many of them have locations than you and I can find online, others presumably are known to Israeli intelligence. The IDF has already demonstrated in the past year its ability to bomb Iran more or less freely. So it is pretty obvious how this would happen.
I think a better example would be the Mossad operation that targeted Ismail Haniyeh. That was a secure hotel for visiting dignitaries, one of the most secure facilities that the Islamic Republic has. If Mossad can hit there, they can kill the ayatollah council. And if they kill the ayatollah council, well...
This guy Hall clearly has a very odd agenda, on a thread about Israel. Feel like we’re not gonna see his name attached to many pro-Israel comments anywhere. Not sure what he’s doing here.
The US cannot have a serious war against Iran. Trump promised no new wars; although Trump's promises are not ever worth the paper they are printed on he will get serious pushback from his isolationist base. But there are other problems, too: (1) the US active duty military is too small to engage in Iran and recruitment is low because of the booming US economy, so a return to conscription would likely be needed. That would result in the kind of civil unrest the US experienced during the Vietnam War. The US also has not trained a conscript army since then, and there would be a delay of months to years to get the conscripts trained and equipped. (2) The effort of sustaining a major war on the opposite side of the world with no allies and no nearby bases are daunting. (3) Iran is mountainous, and he US Army last had a truly successful campaign in mountainous campaign way back in 1847. It's experience in Tunisia and Italy during WW2 showed real limitations that still have not been adequately addressed. (4) The cost of the war would be enormous and would require a major tax increase, which Republicans won't allow. Elon Musk didn't give over $260 million to the Trump campaign to have to pay higher taxes. Trump could try to pay for the war by printing money, but that would likely wreck the US economy.
Iran throw two massive attacks at us, managing to kill a few Jordanians, a Gazan in Yericho, and hurting a Bedouin girl in the Negev. When the IAF went in, the Iranian air defences or their air force were caught sleeping. The IAF was ordered restraint.
We could not conquer Iran anytime, but cripple its military abilities?
What was the combined population and area and allies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan in 67?
>"When the state of Judea fell two thousand years ago in the churban, there was certainly plenty of blame to be placed upon the Romans. Still, while you find condemnation of Rome in Jewish writings, that’s not the emphasis. The emphasis is on figuring out where the Jewish People went wrong and what they could perhaps have done differently"
The analogy between contemporary Palestinians and the Jews after the destruction is intriguing and has been on my mind throughout these 1.5 years of war.
(That said, I’d like to challenge the phrasing 'the state of Judea fell two thousand years ago in the churban.' By 70 CE, Judea had already been under Roman rule for decades and was no longer an independent Jewish state.
The only brief return to independence came later, during Bar Kochba's rebellion around 60 years after the Temple's destruction, and even that was only for two years or so.)
However, there is an important distinction to consider between theological and practical perspectives. While Chazal’s accounts frame the destruction in theological terms, it’s likely that Jews at the time were more immediately consumed by anger and despair over Rome’s actions rather than drawing abstract theological lessons. Moreover, the literature of Chazal was redacted centuries later.
It’s also worth noting that Jewish writings do contain significant expressions of hatred toward Rome
Yep. And let's not forget the Bible itself, which is filled with verses condemning the persecutors of Jews/Israelites, and predicting their eventual downfall and God's vengeance on them
I am not convinced of those numbers. The Palestinians can't come up with 50,000 names. And a lot of the dead were Hamas terrorists.
In any case, the numbers are far lower than the civilian death toll for multiple urban battles of World War II. Nanjing, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Budapest, Manila, Berlin....all far higher. And except for Leningrad, the battles were over in much less time.
As R 'Sachs z'l pointed out there are 2 very different cultures. (The following is my understanding of the situation based on his comments. It is not his delineation)
Judaism is a culture of guilt. You do something wrong you admit it and repent and you are onto a clean sheet. As does Christianity. Teshuvah is a prime factor in Judaism - one has the ability to correct or peacefully right wrongs - wipe the slate clean
The Arabs (and for example the Japanese) have a culture of shame. To be disgraced in public by inappropriate behaviour or failure to achieve a task is worse than death. Therefore a religious Arab could well murder his daughter if she shamed the family by consorting with a man not her husband or unsupervised. Such actions shame the family honour which trumps his daughter's life.
Japanese warriors would commit suicide for failure in achieving their objectives or not winning a war.
Arabs seem to feel shamed by the success of Israel compared to them, both at war and economically and in the personal freedom given. Their solution is to wipe out the source of the shame i.e. the jewish state. No jewish state = no shame.
All the intellectual observers in the West believe that a peaceful settlement can be negotiated. They are simply applying their mental picture of the world i.e discussion, negotiation, being reasonable, tolerance of those different to them onto the Arab -Israel conflict. This may satisy their "superior " intellectual stance but then they don't understand the culture (or don't wish to ) nor do they have blood on the sand. There is no downside and a nice feeling of superiority in their taking that view.
The reality is that as Israel knows full well, that they want us all dead. This is in the Hamas charter and their actions and words consistently demonstrate their belief - they will repeat 7 October "again and again ".
The deaths of thousands of Gazans used as shields for their facilities and soldiers is irrelevant - the dead are simply the accepted price of trying to redeem their "honour" with some believing that their deaths result in heavenly reward.
Unless the moslems become less religious and consequently moderate their sense of guilt and failure the staus quo will continue.
"This inability to self-reflect, to take responsibility, and to consider that one’s approach has been harmful to one’s own cause"
This is ironic, from a guy who has written hundreds of blog posts bashing Chareidim and having accomplished pretty much nothing except destroy the legitimacy of the rationalist approach once championed by him.
Please elaborate precisely what you've accomplished. You were once known for your excellent books on science and Torah. Now, even in the modern world, you are known for your obsession with Chareidim that seems over the top for outsiders.
This is a point that cannot be made to our fellow Jews strongly enough:
stop thinking your long, clever, rational polemics full of citations & Talmudic argumentation & historical evidence & [basically] desperate pleas for understanding are going to win the argument with people who invariably respond “But the genocide… but the occupation… but the murdered children…“
It’s not a racist thing; nothing genetic or biological about it. It’s an acknowledgment of one of history’s most self-evident truths (albeit one that the Left has strived for decades to suppress: all cultures are not equal.
And Palestinian culture is not impressive: far too many Palestinians (and frankly a hell of a lot of other Arabs) proudly exhibit a complete inability (or disinclination; it really doesn’t matter anymore) to engage in rational, honest debate that strives for objectivity.
Even the few on social media who seem to be trying to have some kind of dialogue, often never try to look past certain false premises that are central to the Palestinian narrative.
A self-respecting Jew ought not gratefully engage in polite debate with someone who says “it’s wrong to rape & murder 1200+ of your people… even if you did cause us much greater injury in the nakba.”
Those events have been posted, studied, debated and distorted, long enough. During all that time, the Palestinians have had numerous opportunities to simply move forward and build a better future. They not only rejected all those opportunities, they’ve committed countless atrocities over the past 75 years.
That’s another thing that people, very much including Jews, fail to remember, let alone argue effectively: depraved atrocities, rapes, brutal murders, child-killing… “regular” Palestinians have done all this before, just never on as grand a scale as 10/7.
You're absolutely right. Therefore, the 'retaliation' solution is not applicable to them. Since killing 600 million Muslims is also not an option, the only solution that hasn't been tried yet is education. How do you educate 600 million Muslims? Start with education at home, for Jews and non-Jews alike. Teach the commandments and the concept of loving your neighbor as yourself, as explained in the Vilna Gaon's study house: love every person you are with. Teach Ben Zoma's explanation that every person is created in the image of God, and therefore doing good to every person is an offering to God, while harming any person is harming God. For Muslims, add education about the Quran, which must be understood according to Allah's will as explained simply in the first sura: to do what is right in the eyes of Allah. And what is right? The opening verse: 'Most Gracious, Most Merciful.' This verse is written before every sura to remind and instruct how to understand and follow the words of Allah:
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Hamas est expression facti fidei Jihad Muslimici. Haec fides communis est omnibus Musulmanis in orbe terrarum. Itaque, non Hamas est inimicus generis humani, sed interpretatio fundamentalistica Corani.
Translation into English: Hamas is the practical expression of the belief in Islamic Jihad. This belief is shared by all Muslims in the world. Therefore, it is not Hamas that is the enemy of humanity, but rather the fundamentalist interpretation of the Quran
You're falling into the Western fallacy of thinking that you are more entitled to provide a "correct" interpretation of Islam than, well, Muslims themselves. Furthermore, you're falling into the fallacy of thinking that we're all the same deep down and want the same thing, and all think of God as wanting the same thing as us. That is simply not true. The Canaanites thought their god wanted them slaughtering their own first born.
Leo Jung writes in his memoir that he once, in the wake of World War II, got leaders of all the world religions together to sign a statement about how we're all children of God and just want to get along and have peace and so on. The whole initiative fell apart when the Muslim representatives refused to say they were children, as opposed to slaves, of Allah.
"You're falling into the Western fallacy of thinking that you are more entitled to provide a "correct" interpretation of Islam than, well, Muslims themselves. "
Close, but you're not there yet. I have little interest in discovering the "correct" interpretation of Islam, any more that I'm interested in discovering the "correct" number of angels dancing on a pin. Their faith may be inauthentic to scholars of Islam, but it's damn real to their victims.
Thanks. But, Islamic fundamentalism has existed from the beginning; all five of Muhammad's disciples were murdered on this altar. Since then, whenever it has gained sufficient manpower, it has gone on killing sprees. In its first campaign, in 900, it murdered all the Muslim intelligentsia; doctors and architects, mathematicians and engineers; linguists, philosophers, and theologians. From time to time, it added to the lists of murdered Muslims who were infidels to fundamentalism, including Jews and Christians. For example, Maimonides and his family fled from Spain and Morocco and finally found refuge in a Muslim country that did not allow fundamentalism to penetrate it - Egypt. The majority of those killed in Muslim wars over the past 30 years are non-fundamentalist Muslims. On the one hand, they are the vast majority, but on the other hand, they are not bloodthirsty and do not fight. Thus, over half a million non-fundamentalist Muslims have been killed so far, from Algeria to Afghanistan.
One moderate Muslim (or former Muslim, I don't remember) wrote that the reason you don't see widespread condemnation of the barbarity of October 7th from Muslims is because so many of them think deep down that perhaps this is the fulfillment of the hadith about the Jews hiding behind rocks and trees in the end of days, prominently quoted in the Hamas Charter (the people fleeing from the Nova festival were quite literally hiding behind rocks and trees).
The destruction in the 1948 war of the Arab villages whose inhabitants went out to murder every Jew in the Land of Israel; the destruction in 1967 of the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian armies; the current destruction of Gaza, southern Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq is Allah's judgment on those who interpret the commandment of Jihad as murder rather than as a mission to spread mercy and compassion throughout the world in the name of Allah. Every Muslim who does not interpret these destructions as 'those upon whom wrath has come' as caused by Allah is an infidel to the prophet, an infidel to the Quran, and an infidel to the first sura of the Quran, and five times a day in prayer he is an infidel and a liar to Allah
I'm not sure--the hadith (as quoted in the Hamas charter) says that the rocks and trees will cry out, "Oh servant of Allah! There is a Jew behind me! Come and kill him!"
It's clearly enjoining Muslims to murder Jews, as a pious act of serving Allah.
(It's an interesting take on a statement in Midrash Tehillim. It shows how glaring the difference is between our culture and theirs:
לעתיד אדם הולך ללקוט תאנה בשבת, היא צווחה ואמרה שבת היום... לעתיד אדם רוצה לילך לאשתו נדה האבן צועק ואומר נדה היא
"In the future, a man will try to pluck a fig on Shabbos. The fig will cry out: "It's Shabbos today!". A man will approach his wife when she is in a state of niddah. The stones will cry out, "She's a menstruant!")
"“We have returned from the lesser Jihad (striving in the Cause of Allah) to the greater Jihad (i.e., Jihad against oneself).” They asked, “What is the greater Jihad? He replied, “The struggle against one’s heart.” This Hadith is related by Al-Ghazaly in Kitab Sharh ‘Aja’ib Al-Qulub (The Explanation of the Wonders of the Heart), Chapter on “Bayan Shawahid Al-Naql Min Arbab Al-Basa’ir wa Shawahid Al-Shar‘” in his book entitled Ihya’ ‘Ulum Al-Din" (from the intenet )
", they constantly stress the fact that they had the right to do everything they did and that they should not suffer any consequences as a result. "
Your write that they believe that they shouldn't suffer consequences. Is that true? Is that part of the Arab calculus? Or perhaps they don't care if there are consequences?
Richard Hanania, Substack:
“Beyond polls, individual incidents, and cultural products, the entirety of Gazan society appears to be built around resisting Israel and achieving political ends. Observers have pointed out that Hamas came to power in 2006 and hasn’t held an election since, but there appears to have been no pressure from within Palestinian society to moderate with regards to Israel, or even put forward demands to gain independence, and surveys show that public opinion in Gaza remains uncompromising and militant. While Hamas may have lost some popularity over the years since winning the election of 2006, there is little evidence that Palestinians dislike them for being too extreme, and the approval ratings of groups that are even more radical are actually higher. Dictators face pressure from public opinion all the time, and in the case of Palestinian leaders and what posture to take regarding Israel, it is always towards being more belligerent and never in favor of taking steps to make people’s lives better.”
I think you're making a very true point. I'd just add that I think a lot of the blame should go to UNRWA, human rights groups, and Palestinian supporters worldwide who constantly pump them up with talk about how 'Israel is illegitimate' and 'they are victims of colonization' which goads them to be militant and uncompromising instead of looking for common ground and a solution.
yes, once the Palestinians became one of the Left's sacred victims they stopped being a people and became a Cause. And the first purpose of any Cause is to meet the psychic, emotional, spiritual and political needs of the acolytes of the Cause. In this case that means unhinged denunciations of the Jewish state (as these really get the blood flowing and make you feel holier-than-thou), excuses for every stupid or ugly deed committed by the sacred victims (as they are never subjects but only objects, beneath agency and responsibility) and a desire for some apocalyptic revenge scenario that they can cheer and proclaim as Justice (it's easy to cheer bloodshed when it's not your blood or the blood of anyone you love).
Thus the international Left are the worst enablers of the Palestinians, the equivalent of the person who keeps buying booze for an alcoholic.
God save us all from ever becoming a Cause! It only means you suffer while other people preen over the wreckage.
Great comment. Clarifies a lot
thanks
This.
Quite some historical revisionism you did there. The unholy alliance between left and Islamism is rather recent. You seem to forget that in the wake of the 6 day war, much of the fascination for Israel came from the left, they came in droves to pick fruits in kibbutzim.
Palestinians became the throwing tool of the Arabs, were financed by Arabs and not any left, and when the Arabs got tired of the Palestinians, sadly many in the left became blind to this people who incarnate the most non liberal values in the world.
Explaining everything as right and left is ok for children, grown up people should be able to nuance a bit more their opinions and analyses.
The Palestinians have been a sacred cause for this thing we call the "Left" since the days of Baader-Meinhof and Munich 72...."rather recent" I guess historically but still over 50 yrs ago.
"Explaining everything as right and left"—I didn't mention the "Right" nor try to "explain everything", I just stated a fact and interpreted it.
After Israel traded their kibbutzim to become a modern Western capitalist country allied with America, and once the Soviets turned on Israel and created the "Zionism is racist imperialism" narrative, the Western Left became full backers of the Palestinian (anti-Israel) cause.
This is exemplified by modern Leftists like Chomsky, Butler, Naomi Klein et al and even goes back to I.F. Stone:
—Israel, he charged, was “racial and exclusionist,” a site of “moral myopia” and “Lilliputian nationalism,” and a sad refutation of Jewish universality. “The greatness of the Prophets lay in their overcoming of ethnocentricty,” he claimed. “Here lie the roots of growing divergence between Jew and Israeli; the former with a sense of mission as a Witness in the human wilderness, the latter concerned only with his own tribe’s welfare.”
There's a great book about all this: "The Lions' Den" Susie Linfield 2019
"This inability ... to consider that one’s approach has been harmful to one’s own cause"
See the Hadith in which Muhayyisah on orders of muhammad kills his Jewish business buddy without concern that he's destroying a major source of income.
https://sunnah.com/abudawud:3002
The idea that greenhouses and prosperity can buy peace is a fantasy.
This is a very important thing to bear in mind when trying to "engage" these types, whether Arabs/Muslims themselves or their Western apologists. Leave aside that they readily believe in the worst sort of lies, in AI images, and so on, the fundamental worldview is so different that there's simply no breaking through. On the Arab side, "You're killing your own kids!" can be met with "Good." Meanwhile, the Western Left is so wedded to their Marxist concepts of race and class and colonialism and so on- concepts in which, surprise surprise, Jews are always the bad guy (as they were for Marx himself)- that making such an obvious point as "You're supporting the murder of innocent people!" will be met with "They're not innocent."
Defenders of Israel need to break free of the comfortable myths we have, the desperate hope that all human beings are good peaceful democrats, that we're all alike apart for some superficial differences, of Anne Frank's "In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart." That's not necessarily true. And then move on to those who *can* be convinced, even if you don't like their politics or their religion.
Well said!
I sometimes try pointing this out to Jews caught up in long “shakla v’taryas” with Palestinians who essentially ignore anything the Jews say, and just chant Genocide!…
… and it’s remarkable what resistance there is— it’s like *I’m* some coarse thug, interrupting a sophisticated dialogue between 2 enlightened individuals who happen to see things very differently.
I suspect some of those Jews (often the type who still like to call themselves ”centrists”… In a world where anyone unequivocally supporting Israel is labeled “Right Wing” why would you call yourself a centrist??)—are way too invested in their self-image as ultra-rational intellectuals who are better than the rest of us, who may occasionally resort to, ahem, salty language when faced with an ignorant idiot, expressing admiration for mass-murdering terrorists…
There are plenty of suppprters of Israel who are not right wing. Ritchie Torres represents me in Congress. Just yesterday I sent him a campaign contribution.
Richie Torres—a man of rare political courage & integrity— is totally an outlier in the Democratic Party. This, of course, does not mean he is right wing.
But no, there are NOT “plenty” of LW supporters.
What there may be plenty of is people who, for reasons, political, personal, or unknown, CLAIM to support Israel—but their idea of supporting Israel is to bully it into a premature ceasefire (3 months into the Gaza war!); to relentlessly pressure Israel—but never the Palestinians—to make compromises for peace, while ignoring the the many compromises and enormous sacrifices, Israelis have made for peace in the past…
Lefties for Israel are much like Lefties who claim to love America: they never actually love anything about it, or anything it has done in the past or the present… They do not love it.
Even this sort of wishy-washy, unhelpful liberal “support” for Israel is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Whatever being a liberal progressive may [or may not] have once meant, it has been completely colonized by the radical Left, which is against everything decent & good about America & Israel
Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024: Democratic Yeas 173 Nays 37. It was Trump, not Biden, who bullied Israel into accepting the ceasefire.
Just say "I am right wing". You don't have to justify it by claiming that your political opponents other issues are anti-Israel. Own your opinions.
I'm neither "justifying" anything, nor interested in snarky-teen-on-Reddit-style BS about "owning my opinions". I certainly do own 'em—unlike those progressive Jews still desperately trying to reconcile being useful idiots for the Democratic Party that despises them, even as they insist they're really pro-Israel.
Also unlike Lefties who whitewash all the many sins of the Left, and demonize everything & everyone on the Right, I have no mindless allegiances or cultish loyalties to any party or political movement. I lean Right as long as the Right &/or the GOP continue to more or less align with my values; also, at this point in time, the Republican party is not just more pro-Israel, but the only party that's not actively anti-Israel (as is blindingly obvious to all, whether or not they admit it)…
…That's why I immediately criticized both Trump and those Trump-besotted Jews on the Right who idiotically hailed the ceasefire as the first act of "Trump Come To Israel's Rescue" (it was anything but).
But even as the ceasefire does not feel like a triumph, it is pretty clear there's a much bigger picture here: Netanyahu was likely unhappy about the pressure from America, but there's no question he extracted a price in terms of ongoing & future support & cooperation from Trump's administration—assurances the Democrats would NEVER have provided, let alone actually fulfilled.
All those Lefty Jews who care so darn much about Israel will be weirdly discombobulated when things [hopefully] go well for Israel with Trump, because that type of Jew—the type who STILL idiotically insists that politicians like Obama, Biden, Blinken & Schumer have Israel's best interests in mind—is only good at wringing their hands for Israel with performative concern; the thought of a victorious, ascendant Israel makes them squirm nervously.
Vance and Rubio voted against Biden's $15 billion aid package, because Trump opposed it.
I had expected Vance to be an isolationist who didn't care about Israel, but Rubio had been one of Israel's strongest supporters for years. He sold his soul, and Israel. Neither Trump, nor Vance, nor Rubio have ever been considered Lefties.
Yes, and Torres isn't Jewish.
Meanwhile, the highest-ranking Jew in the United States has turned on Israel.
Who is the highest-ranking Jew in the US?
"he Western Left is so wedded to their Marxist concepts of race and class and colonialism "
Not that I am a fan of the Left in the US these days -- I contributed to four opponents of Squad members last year and we defeated two of them -- but Marxism just isn't a major thing in the US today. It may never have been other than in certain irrelevant intellectual circles. In 29 1/2 years as a professor, I have never met a professor who is a Marxist. (I do know one anarchist prof.) Also, race isn't a Marxist thing. Marx thought it was all about class.
Colonialism long predated capitalism. And when Russia became communist, it kept the colonial possessions of the Russian Empire. The Russian conquest and colonization of the area east of the territory of the Khanate of Sibir was every bit as brutal as that of the Spanish and Portuguese conquerors of the Western Hemisphere. The later conquest and colonization of Central Asia wasn't as brutal; the worst period for Central Asia would be later, hypocritically under the supposedly anti-colonialist communists.
There is another western opinion, that of Gen. William T. Sherman. He often described how horrible war is and how it was better to make it as cruel as possible so that it would end as quickly as possible. His famous marches of destruction through Georgia and South Carolina probably shortened the American Civil War by two years. I write that as the direct descendant of South Carolina Confederates who probably directly observed and may have even experienced Sherman's rampage. The Confederates of South Carolina and Georgia were the most warmongering in the entire short-lived unlamented country; they earned the destruction as did Hamas. Unfortunately, Hamas still rules Gaza while the Confederate States of America ceased to exist on November 6, 1865, when the last Confederate military unit, the CSS Shenandoah, surrendered.
Thanks for the nuanced exposition. I thought social media would lead to global enlightenment, and yet people seem to be more entrenched than ever. Just see the comments, where some say "leftie" as an explanation for all evil in the world, and sometimes the opposite.
The use of words like Marxism, without knowing what Marxism is, as you say.
I suppose it is easier than having to keep changing your views, and admit that politicians you appreciate do things you don't appreciate. A black and white world it of course easier, but those who subscribe to such a doctrine are easily manipulated. Like the capitol rioters, among others.
One recent nonsense from the Right in the US is the term "cultural Marxism". It isn't a thing.
The capitol rioters are a lot like Mussolini's blackshirts.
Marxist philosophy (if not economics) is a big deal in university humanities departments.
When such a Marxist says "colonialism" he is not talking about literal colonies, which barely exist anymore. You're confusing terms.
Hey, guess what Lincoln did to the Confederates *during the war*, and would have done to all of them had he lived. :-)
Well if you want to support the Orwellian changes of meanings I can't stop you. I use colonialism in the way it has been used for centuries.
Many known they are telling lies, but they don't care whether true or not, they care whether others believe it or not.
It took me some time to understand how a society that puts so much emphasis on honour can be so blatantly shameless at the same time.
I have worked with absolutely wonderful Arabs that I grew to appreciate and trust (professionally), but I have also experienced many just lying in my face and denying their lie a second later.
It's another perspective of the world.
"the correct approach was that of Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai "
The גמרא leaves the question open as to whether he was correct.
"משיב חכמים אחור דעתם יסכל"
Was RYBZ himself so sure of his decision in hindsight?
שיש לפני שני דרכים אחת של גן עדן ואחת של גיהנם ואיני יודע באיזו מוליכים אותי ולא אבכה
More to the point, the analogy is completely off, considering that Israel is, thank God, not currently engaged in fighting a world power many times more powerful than it.
It's not so much the that analogy is off, it's that it's flipped: as R' Slifkin points out in the post, modern Israel is analogous to the Romans. Not saying that to judge Israel, but there's definitely an analogy on some level
Something Hamas should have kept in mind, if they even cared.
As reflected in my comment elsewhere on this thread, if we consider that the Arabs of British Mandate Palestine were offered a state before 1948, one could say that the British were analogous to the Romans. The Arab League's refusal (the "three no's") in 1967 and Arafat's refusal in 2000 are just continuations of that intransigence.
At least RYBZ was willing to consider both sides of the issue!
Yes, and today's zealots would call him a leftist
Alas, I can't agree with you less.
1. There are NO "palestinians". "palestine" as a distinct muslim/arab counrty NEVER existed, and G-D willing, will never exist, and therefore there are no "palestinians". it's a countinustion of the israeli-arab war.
2. you are falling into the same fallacy all "rational" (pun intended) westerns fall into - that your rational way of thinking is akin to the way muslim/arabs think and want. they don't want peace, they don't want a good life, raise childern, go to work etc. they want you DEAD, nothing else. please refer the hamas charter (available on-line).
There are NO 'Palestinians.'"
This argument is outdated. It might have held some weight decades ago, but it is no longer accurate. Millions of people have identified as Palestinians for decades now, and denying this reality is simply incorrect
Millions of teenage girls "identify" as boys and vice versa. Accepting that, however, only leads to disaster.
I mostly agree with that, but it doesn't prove that all identities are meaningless
Proves that some are.
There are not millions of teenaged girls in the US identifying as boys.
There are millions who think it is a reasonable position.
Not millions. You're conflating population count with social media posts.
There's another problem. And that's with the whole "We're the true original inhabitants of the country".
The story of a returning diaspora may not exist outside of Israel. Italian-Americans don't return to Italy, and the Back to Africa was a failure, etc.
While קיבוץ גלויות may be one our great contemporary miracles, it may carry a frightful message for others. Should the Turks fear the return of the original Anatolians? Should nationalistic Scots make way for a return of the Picts? Has Trump seen the last of the Mohicans? The problem with claiming our status as the original inhabitants is that it negates the national existence of so many other peoples who are relative newcomers to the lands that they identify with.
The same thing goes with the concept that the Palestinians are not a real people. Sure, there's truth there. Because so many other ethnic groups came into existence rather late in history. They just only a few centuries more "real" than the Palestinians.
Maybe it would be more effective to cite the first Rashi in חומש. It implies no threat to other Johnny-come-lately ethnic groups in their conquered and adopted land.
Two things to clarify. First is that the Jews did not return and demand a land that belonged to others. There was no sovereign nation here.
Second, the Palestinians have no ethnic identity that is any different from Levantine Arabs in surrounding countries. Jordan itself is historically part of Palestine.
"hey just only a few centuries more "real" than the Palestinians."
About half the national identities in the world are newer than the Palestinian identity.
Yeah, but they have stable countries and aren't trying to kill Jews.
True, but that's irrelevant to the point being made here. The point being made is that it's unreasonable to state that "Palestinian identity is nonsense, because it's only ~130 years old", when lots of analogous accepted identities are younger than that
Why should they have sympathy for those with a national identity many times older than theirs? They have more in common with the latter-day people who identify themselves as Palestinians.
That's why pedigree and authenticity is not going make a convincing argument.
This issue is being framed incorrectly here. Part of the glaringly obvious problem with the Palestinians' belatedly discovered peoplehood is…
1. Notwithstanding some early references to "Palestinians" maybe 100 years ago, it was not until decades later—well after Israel had successfully defended itself from a pan-Arab invasion at its birth, and began to grow & thrive & build its society, after Israel demonstrated repeatedly that it would not be conquered by Arab armies—it was only then that the Palestinians embraced this new identity… They suddenly "became' a people—in a land in which the society & state of Israel were already an existing reality.
You can't just declare yourself a people and then retroactively claim indigenous rights to the land in which you just now became a people.
2. Even as the Palestinians suddenly became a people right before everyone's eyes… they simultaneously try to pass themselves off as an ancient, indigenous people, the real inhabitants of the Promised Land—descendants of the Canaanites, or the Pilishtim, or the Real Jews, or… the bu||$hit never ends, and it isn't just ignorant youths on social media; their leaders spew the same offensively stupid drivel.
In most contexts, I’m inclined to agree with you. It’s one of Israel’s biggest tactical mistakes, conceding this point decades ago.
But they did, and here we are.
Still, it’s fair to point out, strongly & often, that the whole Palestinian “culture“ and “identity“ is built around opposition to Israel, phony claims of victimization by Israel, and antisemitism.
You can challenge anyone—certainly 100% of the ignorant wokelings who “passionately” support “Palestine”— to define the “Palestinian identity” in terms that predate, or simply don’t rely on, the existence of Israel.
I find it a very effective line against the many mindless pro-Palestinian trolls online. I’ve never once heard a response.
Of course as we’ve all been saying here, actually responding rationally to anything is not part of their culture.
So maybe that’s the answer: being Palestinian means never having to say you’re sorry… or anything else that makes any sense whatsoever!
'to define the “Palestinian identity” in terms that predate, or simply don’t rely on, the existence of Israel.'
The Palestinian identity emerged in late Ottoman times, promoted initially by Arabic-speaking Christians opposed to Ottoman rule and the hegemony of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople. From the beginning they were anti-Zionist, but they were more anti-Turkish. Turkish rule ended in 1917 and Turkish sovereignty ended in 1924. The State of Israel would not exist for decades.
"The Palestinian identity emerged in late Ottoman times"
More likely, began to emerge.
I refer you again to Crum's Behind the Silken Curtain. There he cites Philip Hitti who saw the concept of Palestine as a region artificially separated out of Syria and then, by dint of its separateness, associated with Jews. That was in the late 40s at which time the so-called Palestinian identity had not yet crystalized.
so if millons of people identify as "palestinians" ( a doubtfull stament, since they thenselves admit in closed circles they are arabs. moreover. they can't be palestinians, since there is no "p" in arabic...), then we should keep on with a charade and base our decisions on myths and falsehoods ?
It's not a charade - they identify as Palestinians. The argument from the fact that there's no "P" in Arabic is absurd; they simply pronounce it as "Falastine." It's like arguing that I can't identify as Ashkenazi, because Ashkenaz means something else in the Bible. The meaning of words change over time, and identities change over time, some slowly, some rapidly.
And being Arab is not contradictory to this identity. People naturally have multiple layers to their identity. For instance, I identify as male, Jewish, white, Ashkenazi, American-Israeli, and so on
Of course it's a charade. They say it temselves. I suggest you watch the videos at Memri.
The "p" story is at the heart of the issue. Palestine is a name given to the area 2000 years ago by the Romans. It proves that that Arabs have no connection to the area, whatsoever.
One more important point - the whole concept of nationality, states and borders is totaly foregin to the muslim menatlity. It's a foreign concept imposed on the middle east by the Europeans. Arabs identify as Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians etc, only for the sake of the idiots in the West. Their ultimate goal is not states, but a global Islamic empire, beginning with the Middle east and on-going today in Europe.
"Palestine is a name given to the area 2000 years ago by the Romans. It proves that that Arabs have no connection to the area, whatsoever."
While it's true that the name 'Palestine' was given to the region by the Romans around 2000 years ago, this etymological fact doesn't negate the deep historical connection of Palestinian Arabs to the land. Many Palestinian families have lived in this region for countless generations, with some likely descended from ancient inhabitants, including Jews. Just as identities evolve - like how my family has identified as Ashkenazi for over 800 years - Palestinians have embraced this identity over the past century-plus. The key point is that cultural and national identities transform over time, independent of a name's historical origins
Now you’re the one making a leap. Some Palestinians may indeed have very long roots in the land… But many—and likely most—do not. The famously high growth rate of the Palestinian population over the past century is more than just interesting—it’s incredible, and in fact, has very little credibility, if not acknowledging significant Arab immigration from neighboring Arab countries.
“Palestinians” includes Arabs from surrounding countries who immigrated at a time when being from this or the Arab state meant very little in the life of the average Arab.
And again, “embracing an identity” surely involves more than passionately hating the people who are now, RETROACTIVELY, “occupying” the land that your newly embraced identity suggests you own!
Putting aside the hypocritical hate—why aren’t they marching outside the Jordanian embassy??—Palestinians have done virtually nothing in their alleged 100 years of peoplehood to actually build a state or a normal society.
that is simply not true. the first arabs arrived in israel in 638, not countless generations ago....they don't have, and never had "deep hisrical connections". the arabs were nomads, and drifted in and out of israel. the first time a significant arab population drifted here was during late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, when jews came here and started cultivating this barren wasteland. there was suddenly work....
Your argument about P vs F should embarrass you. The P and F are the same letter in the Hebrew alphabet. And you know that. You probably don't know that in both Indo-European and Semitic languages, consonant shifts between P and F are remarkably common. In fact it was the very first important finding of the then new discipline of historical linguistics, now known as Grimm's law, after Jacob Grimm who publicized it (and also wrote fairy tales with his brother).
Sorry to disappont you, but I'm not embrasased. Your linguistic knowledge is very impressive. However, the point is that Palestine can't be an arab name. It's a name used by the Romans (yes, I'm repeating myself) and has nothing to do with ANY arab population
If you’re saying Palestinians are not deeply committed to an independent identity as Palestinians (versus Syrians, Egyptians, Lebanese, etc.) you’re probably on to something—the fact that over the entire course of their short history, they have done virtually zero to build a society of any kind highlights that.
But this whole argument about the letter P, and the fact that “Pilishtim” in the Torah are not connected to today’s Palestinians is mostly useless & beside the point. It does NOT “prove” that they have no connection to the area—it simply is not a proof that they DO have a historical connection (it’s one of their silliest claims to begin with).
"Arabs have no connection to the area"
The Roman province of Arabia was nearby. Petra was its capital. I think its official name was Arabia Petraea. The people from there are mentioned in 1 Maccabees.
from 638. the point is that arabs have nomaded in and out of israel, never attaching themselves to the area and never establishing a state. over the last 100 years, a new "palestiniain" identity was invented
Hamas est inimicus totius generis humani et exterminandus est.
Ceterum autem censeo Gazam esse delendam.
There are numerous other nationalities that never had their own independent country.
your point being....
That your point is debunked.
So why of all of them would Palestinians- *Palestinians*, of all people- be first in line to get one?
As of 1800 there was no such thing as Uruguayans.
I fail to see a point. Uruguay is a nice-sized, uncontested, fairly peaceful country.
i beg to differ
""palestine" as a distinct muslim/arab counrty NEVER existed"
And that is true for numerous other national groups. The Kurds are one example, The Roma are another. You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to alternative facts.
All true. And sometimes, a people—and the rest of the world—all agree that they “deserve” to have a state of their own. It is contingent on their ability to sustain a viable state internally, defend it, and coexist reasonably with the other extant states in the world.
Never has any other group in history demonstrated as thoroughly, decisively & repeatedly, over nearly as century, their complete unfitness to have a state of their own.
Literally no one deserves a state LESS than the Palestinian population, which has always supported inhumane terrorism, has done zero to try to build a healthy society or develop infrastructure, & for the most part, do not lift the finger to improve their own lives, or the lives of their children.
Palestinian terrorism long predated the fabricated narratives about occupation, resistance, etc. On the other hand, when different Arab states held (or, as in the case of Jordan, currently hold), control over “Palestinian” territories, the Palestinians don’t talk much about THAT occupation—this alone highlights the fact that they’re all about hating Israel, more than “fulfilling Palestinian aspirations” or other totally vague formulations.
You have done an impressive research, which is totally irrelevant to my point.
I'm not talking about genetic or genealogical linkage. I'm not disputing the fact these linkages can be found.
I'm talking about the IDENTITY. No one until 100 years ago identified himself as Palestinian. Palestine was the name the league of nations gave it to Britain ad a mandate, NOT AS A MUSLIM COUNTRY.
It seems to me you're confusing the terms....
It's definitely a function of their honor-shame culture. Fighting against a much stronger opponent gains honor, even if you suffer devastation. (People said that after the First Gulf War. Did Saddam Hussein really think he was able to defeat the United States? But Arab culture respects fighting against a much stronger enemy, even if it's futile.)
Also, Abbas is viewed by them as an Israeli lackey for not having the backbone to join the "armed resistance". Israel performed the Disengagement, partially in order to bolster Abbas' standing, to show that non-resistance brings results. Instead, Hamas said that their armed resistance was what led to Israel giving up on holding onto Gaza, and Hamas' steadfastness was what forced Israel to perform the Disengagement!
I'm grateful to Rabbi Slifkin for posing these questions to Palestinians, to see how they really think. I've seen it when they give interviews on Western media, most notably Piers Morgan. It's infuriating how they flip the fault for their suffering onto Israel, instead of their 100+ years of intransigence! If they would ever compose a Muslim equivalent to על חטא, it would be very short!
Demonstrating how they think to those who will be abhorred by it is a good goal. Thinking they will be convinced is not.
"Did Saddam Hussein really think he was able to defeat the United States?"
There are Jews who think that Israel could defeat Iran, a country with 8x the population and 80x the land area, and a larger economy, in addition to powerful allies.
What is meant by "defeating Iran"? Israel would suffice with getting rid of Iran's ability to attack us, or just deterrence. Israel certainly doesn't intend to conquer Iran.
The US objective in the First Gulf War was to make Saddam Hussein leave Kuwait. That objective was achieved.
"getting rid of Iran's ability to attack us"
And nobody has any idea as to how to make that happen.
No, it's pretty simple. Iran has a small number of nuclear enrichment, missile, and similar facilities. Many of them have locations than you and I can find online, others presumably are known to Israeli intelligence. The IDF has already demonstrated in the past year its ability to bomb Iran more or less freely. So it is pretty obvious how this would happen.
Not many serious people advocate Israel full-on going to war with Iran.
That said, larger land-mass & population are not an indicator of military might. Israel is Exhibit A in that statement.
Anyone who is not actively anti-Israel is very aware of this. One has to wonder what ideological corner your defeatist comments are emanating from.
Israel could certainly bring down Iran's government if it was creative. Look how quickly Syria's fell.
No one imagines that Israel could *occupy* Iran. For one, Iran doesn't border Israel. Iran itself doesn't seem to realize this, but they're crazy.
So you're comparing apples and oranges.
I think a better example would be the Mossad operation that targeted Ismail Haniyeh. That was a secure hotel for visiting dignitaries, one of the most secure facilities that the Islamic Republic has. If Mossad can hit there, they can kill the ayatollah council. And if they kill the ayatollah council, well...
This guy Hall clearly has a very odd agenda, on a thread about Israel. Feel like we’re not gonna see his name attached to many pro-Israel comments anywhere. Not sure what he’s doing here.
"Israel could certainly bring down Iran's government if it was creative."
An example of the delusion.
"Look how quickly Syria's fell."
Overthrown by Syrians. Not by Israelis.
Delusion? It's delusion to think that Iran's mullahs aren't hanging on by a thread. Such delusions lead to pallets of cash being shipped to them.
It's pretty universally agreed that Israel's acts against Iran and Hezbollah led to Assad's downfall.
Syrians have been trying to overthrow Assad for decades and somehow only managed to do so this year.
Israel is a us proxy. A war with Iran would pit the US economy against the Iranian
The US cannot have a serious war against Iran. Trump promised no new wars; although Trump's promises are not ever worth the paper they are printed on he will get serious pushback from his isolationist base. But there are other problems, too: (1) the US active duty military is too small to engage in Iran and recruitment is low because of the booming US economy, so a return to conscription would likely be needed. That would result in the kind of civil unrest the US experienced during the Vietnam War. The US also has not trained a conscript army since then, and there would be a delay of months to years to get the conscripts trained and equipped. (2) The effort of sustaining a major war on the opposite side of the world with no allies and no nearby bases are daunting. (3) Iran is mountainous, and he US Army last had a truly successful campaign in mountainous campaign way back in 1847. It's experience in Tunisia and Italy during WW2 showed real limitations that still have not been adequately addressed. (4) The cost of the war would be enormous and would require a major tax increase, which Republicans won't allow. Elon Musk didn't give over $260 million to the Trump campaign to have to pay higher taxes. Trump could try to pay for the war by printing money, but that would likely wreck the US economy.
Realistically, the us would be using missile and airstrikes without attempting to take any Iranian land.
Any Iranian counter invasion would be defended against as a defensive war.
The us would hypothetically "fall into" war to defend israel against the Iranian "aggression ".
Sounds like an easier sell to me than Vietnam.
Us bases in turkey and jordan.
Iran throw two massive attacks at us, managing to kill a few Jordanians, a Gazan in Yericho, and hurting a Bedouin girl in the Negev. When the IAF went in, the Iranian air defences or their air force were caught sleeping. The IAF was ordered restraint.
We could not conquer Iran anytime, but cripple its military abilities?
What was the combined population and area and allies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan in 67?
>"When the state of Judea fell two thousand years ago in the churban, there was certainly plenty of blame to be placed upon the Romans. Still, while you find condemnation of Rome in Jewish writings, that’s not the emphasis. The emphasis is on figuring out where the Jewish People went wrong and what they could perhaps have done differently"
The analogy between contemporary Palestinians and the Jews after the destruction is intriguing and has been on my mind throughout these 1.5 years of war.
(That said, I’d like to challenge the phrasing 'the state of Judea fell two thousand years ago in the churban.' By 70 CE, Judea had already been under Roman rule for decades and was no longer an independent Jewish state.
The only brief return to independence came later, during Bar Kochba's rebellion around 60 years after the Temple's destruction, and even that was only for two years or so.)
However, there is an important distinction to consider between theological and practical perspectives. While Chazal’s accounts frame the destruction in theological terms, it’s likely that Jews at the time were more immediately consumed by anger and despair over Rome’s actions rather than drawing abstract theological lessons. Moreover, the literature of Chazal was redacted centuries later.
It’s also worth noting that Jewish writings do contain significant expressions of hatred toward Rome
Sometimes the Gemara codes its attacks on Rome as references to Bavel and Nevuchanezzar, but those attacks are really strong.
Yep. And let's not forget the Bible itself, which is filled with verses condemning the persecutors of Jews/Israelites, and predicting their eventual downfall and God's vengeance on them
"There’s at least 50,000 dead"
I am not convinced of those numbers. The Palestinians can't come up with 50,000 names. And a lot of the dead were Hamas terrorists.
In any case, the numbers are far lower than the civilian death toll for multiple urban battles of World War II. Nanjing, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Budapest, Manila, Berlin....all far higher. And except for Leningrad, the battles were over in much less time.
The problem is that the number could be 200,000 dead civilians and Hamas wouldn't care. It could be two million and they wouldn't care.
And of course it could be 0 and still the crazies would attack Israel with the same exact vehemence.
Which makes one wonder why Israel bothers.
As R 'Sachs z'l pointed out there are 2 very different cultures. (The following is my understanding of the situation based on his comments. It is not his delineation)
Judaism is a culture of guilt. You do something wrong you admit it and repent and you are onto a clean sheet. As does Christianity. Teshuvah is a prime factor in Judaism - one has the ability to correct or peacefully right wrongs - wipe the slate clean
The Arabs (and for example the Japanese) have a culture of shame. To be disgraced in public by inappropriate behaviour or failure to achieve a task is worse than death. Therefore a religious Arab could well murder his daughter if she shamed the family by consorting with a man not her husband or unsupervised. Such actions shame the family honour which trumps his daughter's life.
Japanese warriors would commit suicide for failure in achieving their objectives or not winning a war.
Arabs seem to feel shamed by the success of Israel compared to them, both at war and economically and in the personal freedom given. Their solution is to wipe out the source of the shame i.e. the jewish state. No jewish state = no shame.
All the intellectual observers in the West believe that a peaceful settlement can be negotiated. They are simply applying their mental picture of the world i.e discussion, negotiation, being reasonable, tolerance of those different to them onto the Arab -Israel conflict. This may satisy their "superior " intellectual stance but then they don't understand the culture (or don't wish to ) nor do they have blood on the sand. There is no downside and a nice feeling of superiority in their taking that view.
The reality is that as Israel knows full well, that they want us all dead. This is in the Hamas charter and their actions and words consistently demonstrate their belief - they will repeat 7 October "again and again ".
The deaths of thousands of Gazans used as shields for their facilities and soldiers is irrelevant - the dead are simply the accepted price of trying to redeem their "honour" with some believing that their deaths result in heavenly reward.
Unless the moslems become less religious and consequently moderate their sense of guilt and failure the staus quo will continue.
"This inability to self-reflect, to take responsibility, and to consider that one’s approach has been harmful to one’s own cause"
This is ironic, from a guy who has written hundreds of blog posts bashing Chareidim and having accomplished pretty much nothing except destroy the legitimacy of the rationalist approach once championed by him.
Actually I think I've accomplished a lot.
Please elaborate precisely what you've accomplished. You were once known for your excellent books on science and Torah. Now, even in the modern world, you are known for your obsession with Chareidim that seems over the top for outsiders.
Perah adam. Even the Nazis knew when to call it a day.
Excellent, concise article.
This is a point that cannot be made to our fellow Jews strongly enough:
stop thinking your long, clever, rational polemics full of citations & Talmudic argumentation & historical evidence & [basically] desperate pleas for understanding are going to win the argument with people who invariably respond “But the genocide… but the occupation… but the murdered children…“
It’s not a racist thing; nothing genetic or biological about it. It’s an acknowledgment of one of history’s most self-evident truths (albeit one that the Left has strived for decades to suppress: all cultures are not equal.
And Palestinian culture is not impressive: far too many Palestinians (and frankly a hell of a lot of other Arabs) proudly exhibit a complete inability (or disinclination; it really doesn’t matter anymore) to engage in rational, honest debate that strives for objectivity.
Even the few on social media who seem to be trying to have some kind of dialogue, often never try to look past certain false premises that are central to the Palestinian narrative.
A self-respecting Jew ought not gratefully engage in polite debate with someone who says “it’s wrong to rape & murder 1200+ of your people… even if you did cause us much greater injury in the nakba.”
Those events have been posted, studied, debated and distorted, long enough. During all that time, the Palestinians have had numerous opportunities to simply move forward and build a better future. They not only rejected all those opportunities, they’ve committed countless atrocities over the past 75 years.
That’s another thing that people, very much including Jews, fail to remember, let alone argue effectively: depraved atrocities, rapes, brutal murders, child-killing… “regular” Palestinians have done all this before, just never on as grand a scale as 10/7.
You're absolutely right. Therefore, the 'retaliation' solution is not applicable to them. Since killing 600 million Muslims is also not an option, the only solution that hasn't been tried yet is education. How do you educate 600 million Muslims? Start with education at home, for Jews and non-Jews alike. Teach the commandments and the concept of loving your neighbor as yourself, as explained in the Vilna Gaon's study house: love every person you are with. Teach Ben Zoma's explanation that every person is created in the image of God, and therefore doing good to every person is an offering to God, while harming any person is harming God. For Muslims, add education about the Quran, which must be understood according to Allah's will as explained simply in the first sura: to do what is right in the eyes of Allah. And what is right? The opening verse: 'Most Gracious, Most Merciful.' This verse is written before every sura to remind and instruct how to understand and follow the words of Allah:
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds,
The Most Gracious, the Most Merciful,
Master of the Day of Judgment.
It is You we worship and You we ask for help.
Guide us to the straight path.
The path of those 1 whom You have favored,
Not of those who have incurred Your wrath,
Nor of those who 2 go astray."
Hamas est inimicus totius generis humani et exterminandus est.
Ceterum autem censeo Gazam esse delendam.
Hamas est expression facti fidei Jihad Muslimici. Haec fides communis est omnibus Musulmanis in orbe terrarum. Itaque, non Hamas est inimicus generis humani, sed interpretatio fundamentalistica Corani.
Translation into English: Hamas is the practical expression of the belief in Islamic Jihad. This belief is shared by all Muslims in the world. Therefore, it is not Hamas that is the enemy of humanity, but rather the fundamentalist interpretation of the Quran
You're falling into the Western fallacy of thinking that you are more entitled to provide a "correct" interpretation of Islam than, well, Muslims themselves. Furthermore, you're falling into the fallacy of thinking that we're all the same deep down and want the same thing, and all think of God as wanting the same thing as us. That is simply not true. The Canaanites thought their god wanted them slaughtering their own first born.
Leo Jung writes in his memoir that he once, in the wake of World War II, got leaders of all the world religions together to sign a statement about how we're all children of God and just want to get along and have peace and so on. The whole initiative fell apart when the Muslim representatives refused to say they were children, as opposed to slaves, of Allah.
"You're falling into the Western fallacy of thinking that you are more entitled to provide a "correct" interpretation of Islam than, well, Muslims themselves. "
Close, but you're not there yet. I have little interest in discovering the "correct" interpretation of Islam, any more that I'm interested in discovering the "correct" number of angels dancing on a pin. Their faith may be inauthentic to scholars of Islam, but it's damn real to their victims.
Thanks. But, Islamic fundamentalism has existed from the beginning; all five of Muhammad's disciples were murdered on this altar. Since then, whenever it has gained sufficient manpower, it has gone on killing sprees. In its first campaign, in 900, it murdered all the Muslim intelligentsia; doctors and architects, mathematicians and engineers; linguists, philosophers, and theologians. From time to time, it added to the lists of murdered Muslims who were infidels to fundamentalism, including Jews and Christians. For example, Maimonides and his family fled from Spain and Morocco and finally found refuge in a Muslim country that did not allow fundamentalism to penetrate it - Egypt. The majority of those killed in Muslim wars over the past 30 years are non-fundamentalist Muslims. On the one hand, they are the vast majority, but on the other hand, they are not bloodthirsty and do not fight. Thus, over half a million non-fundamentalist Muslims have been killed so far, from Algeria to Afghanistan.
Even 10% of a billion is a really, really big number.
One moderate Muslim (or former Muslim, I don't remember) wrote that the reason you don't see widespread condemnation of the barbarity of October 7th from Muslims is because so many of them think deep down that perhaps this is the fulfillment of the hadith about the Jews hiding behind rocks and trees in the end of days, prominently quoted in the Hamas Charter (the people fleeing from the Nova festival were quite literally hiding behind rocks and trees).
The destruction in the 1948 war of the Arab villages whose inhabitants went out to murder every Jew in the Land of Israel; the destruction in 1967 of the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian armies; the current destruction of Gaza, southern Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq is Allah's judgment on those who interpret the commandment of Jihad as murder rather than as a mission to spread mercy and compassion throughout the world in the name of Allah. Every Muslim who does not interpret these destructions as 'those upon whom wrath has come' as caused by Allah is an infidel to the prophet, an infidel to the Quran, and an infidel to the first sura of the Quran, and five times a day in prayer he is an infidel and a liar to Allah
I'm not sure--the hadith (as quoted in the Hamas charter) says that the rocks and trees will cry out, "Oh servant of Allah! There is a Jew behind me! Come and kill him!"
It's clearly enjoining Muslims to murder Jews, as a pious act of serving Allah.
(It's an interesting take on a statement in Midrash Tehillim. It shows how glaring the difference is between our culture and theirs:
לעתיד אדם הולך ללקוט תאנה בשבת, היא צווחה ואמרה שבת היום... לעתיד אדם רוצה לילך לאשתו נדה האבן צועק ואומר נדה היא
"In the future, a man will try to pluck a fig on Shabbos. The fig will cry out: "It's Shabbos today!". A man will approach his wife when she is in a state of niddah. The stones will cry out, "She's a menstruant!")
Jihad means violence, sorry.
"“We have returned from the lesser Jihad (striving in the Cause of Allah) to the greater Jihad (i.e., Jihad against oneself).” They asked, “What is the greater Jihad? He replied, “The struggle against one’s heart.” This Hadith is related by Al-Ghazaly in Kitab Sharh ‘Aja’ib Al-Qulub (The Explanation of the Wonders of the Heart), Chapter on “Bayan Shawahid Al-Naql Min Arbab Al-Basa’ir wa Shawahid Al-Shar‘” in his book entitled Ihya’ ‘Ulum Al-Din" (from the intenet )
Thank you for truth.
", they constantly stress the fact that they had the right to do everything they did and that they should not suffer any consequences as a result. "
Your write that they believe that they shouldn't suffer consequences. Is that true? Is that part of the Arab calculus? Or perhaps they don't care if there are consequences?
The Arab cries out, the Jew hit me back 🤯
It's the epitiome of self entitlement and the expectation of having no consequences for one's consequential behavior.
An enigma wrapped in a conundrum punctuated with the clearest ownership of the land document ever.🤷
Self-criticism is important, and fear that this is becoming less common