Jack's Devil's Advocacy

A New theory - Civil War

2009-07-11T10:39:00.000-07:00

Thanks to @jew4palestine for this article:

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20081006/FOREIGN/279853798

It leads me to believe a "new" theory. That the battle between Israel and Palestine is actually not a battle between two nations, but actually a civil war. It is a civil war between the descendants of the Israelites. There are several factions, but the largest two are the Jewish descendants (the ones who stayed true to Judaism more or less) and the descendants who were converted by force by the invading Arab Muslims after the death of the Prophet Mohammed. There are some Christian descendants and some others (Samaritans for example), but mostly it's between the Jewish and Muslim Israelites. Of course, as with all civil wars, all sides have managed to attract additional forces from outside. First the Muslim Israelites swelled their numbers by allowing migratory Arabs and other Muslims to join their ranks. Then the Jewish Israelites swelled their numbers through allowing Jews from elsewhere to join them. (At one point the Crusaders tried the same thing, but for now, they aren't a real factor).

As I read the history of the Levant, it becomes clear that, given it's migratory position geographically, its history is essentially a history of conquest and civil war. In that context, what the Israelis and the Palestinians are doing now is perfectly 'normal' and understandable (even as we hate war and killing). (References Bilad Al Sham and the Levant)

In this context, "Palestinians" as a name for Muslim Israelites, is a relatively new concept (relative to the history of other factions fighting in the region). To recap, Hadrian, the Roman Emperor, conquered Judea, and renamed the area Syria Palestina (based on the Phoenicians who lived in Gaza). That was the year 0135 (yes, yes, just under a couple of thousand years ago). You can read more here, but let's skip ahead 600 years or so, to when the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates attacked and conquered the area, and brought with them their religion (Islam). Not all the Israelites converted, but many were probably forced to, either by threat of death or economic realities (which is pretty much par for the course in all colonialist endeavours).

Anyway, more fighting and more conquest. Skipping ahead to 1516, and the Ottomans (also Muslim) conquered the land. It wasn't called Palestina anymore (at least not under the Ottomans - it was called Bilad ash-Sham (Province of Syria). More fighting, and more conquest (read about Muhammad Ali of Egypt in the 1831 war, for example).

Anyway, we finally get to the modern period, which despite my friend @jew4palestine's contention should start in 1967, actually should start at World War 1. The Ottoman's sided with Germany, and lost. The Brits got the land, and they called it British Mandate Palestine. See a map here. That was 1920. Three years later, the Brits cut the place in two, and created Jordan. They held on, and got sucked into the Israelite civil war until 1948, and as usual, the two dominant sides duked it out, with a little help from their friends. The Jewish Israelites ruled one half, and the Muslim Israelites, well, they were ruled by Jordan and Egypt. More battles in 50s, and in 1965, the Muslim Israelites reorganized (under the banner of the Palestinian Liberation Organization) - yes, 2 years before what we now call the "occupation." More battles, and in 1967, the Jewish Israelites took control of more of the territory (but not all of it, when we look at the history of the Levant).

Where are we now? Well, suffice it to say, the Muslim Israelites and the descendants of other Muslims who stuck around (mostly Arabs but others too), don't like that their Jewish brothers are ruling the land, and that's where we are now.

I think I am concluding that it's not an occupation (how can you occupy your own land?) - it's a civil war between two factions of the same 'tribe' who are divided, at the moment, on religious and lingustic lines (probably a history of clan warfare in there too). Of course, the whole damn thing is fanned by outsiders, but that's for another day.

So, thanks to @jew4palestine for the article which really reinforced my thinking that this is round 51 (arbitrary number for now) of the same old civil war. Sigh.

In response to tweetextensions.com

2009-07-01T22:50:00.000-07:00

In response to tweetextensions.com
Iraqi ‘independence celebrations

http://luckykiwi.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/iraqi-independence-celebrations/

Or maybe, just in this particular case, the "radical native" really is to blame? If we choose to accept the underlying premiss of your hypothesis, which is that the "native" is equal to the "european", and not inferior (a hypothesis I agree with, btw), then the "native" has to step up and take responsibility for his actions sometimes (and not always blame it on the "other"). OK, let's stop being obtuse. And let's be frank. Unfortunately, there are far too many Muslims who take Sura 98:5 (and other similar passages from the Koran) as license to bring forth the wrath of God on those who do not believe. Of course, many others of other religions act unjustly in the name of their God or their prophet (Jews and Christians included), but so long as there are people in this world who think their religion is the only way, and damn to hell those who don't believe, then we are stuck where we are (or at least until the Klingons/Romulons/Borg come to unite us in common cause).

Before there were Jews, Christians and Muslims

2009-06-23T04:43:00.000-07:00

RT @palestine http://tinyurl.com/mrmakl - an ancient tomb from before there were Jews, Christians and Muslims - what does that tell us?

Tweaking Avinunu's Obama Tweaks

2009-06-23T04:05:00.000-07:00

NEW YORK CITY (BNO NEWS) -- "The [Muslim World] must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on [Muslims to stand up to fundamentalism and] to stop all violent and unjust actions [against "unbelievers"]. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. [Humanity and God] will ultimately judge the actions of [Muslims]. If [Mulsims] seek the respect of the international community, they must respect the dignity of [all people] and [in countries where a leader practices the Muslim faith], govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to that truth, and we will continue to bear witness."

(Avinunu's original post: http://avinunu.blogspot.com/2009/06/obamas-iran-statement-tweaked-bit.html)