Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
From Zeek: A Journal of Jewish Thought and Culture
http://www.zeek.net/708memory/
Both pro- and anti-Israeli forces claim to be speaking of the same history, yet each side draws a completely different conclusion about what actually took place. According to one argument, Jewish-Muslim history recounts a time of harmony, coexistence, and cultural interchange, while the other contends that this same period was one of humiliation, discrimination, and oppression. Somewhere in between these respective ideological claims lies a history that still needs to be properly understood independent of the desire to political repurpose the origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Pro-Arab pundits must take into account that, notwithstanding all the benefits that Islam brought forth to the Jews, by today’s moral and legal standards the Jews of Islam lived as second-class citizens. They were subjected to unique taxes such as the poll tax and the land tax, while civil law imposed prohibitions that marked them as different from and inferior to their Muslim counterparts. Jews were prevented from striking Muslims, bearing arms, building or repairing houses of worship, proselytizing, and were forced to wear distinctive clothing. In addition, they experienced bouts of persecution and violence. Any writer who addresses the topic of Jewish-Muslim history without taking these issues into consideration is being negligent.
Pro-Israeli writers need to acknowledge that, in spite of their unequal status, the Jews living in Muslim societies – both in medieval and early modern times – were members of well-integrated communities. The degree to which Jews were culturally, linguistically, socially, and economically assimilated in Muslim societies is proof in and of itself that Jewish-Muslim history cannot be characterized solely in terms of discrimination and persecution. Legally, while the dhimmi (the non-Muslim citizen of an Islamic state) was subject to many prohibitions, in exchange he received freedom of religious worship, freedom of self-government, freedom of movement and settlement throughout the empire (with the exception of Mecca and Medina), freedom of occupation, and protection by the law. Again, in view of these facts, we cannot characterize Jewish-Muslim history solely in terms of intolerance.
"this is not about anti-Israeli sentiments, it is about the monstrosity of war, of innocents being slaughtered."
That did it, it's obvious you hate Jews and want a Jew-free world. Just ask Xanthro or any of his pals and they will tell you.
yer funny.
Tay-Sachs is predominant in people of Eastern-European descent. Of course, if a family has it, and they remain Jewish, it looks like a "Jewish" disease. If a disease is predominant in the Italian Peninsula, does that make it a Catholic disease? (Which raises an interesting point - the shell game of the definition of "Jewish." Is it a race, a religion, or a culture? That entirely depends on which one will make a critic look like an anti-Semite.)
There is no such thing as a "Jewish" race. Jews marry Jews, so it stays in the gene pool. It occurs in non-Jews too, unless you define "Jew" as someone who is able to get Tay-Sachs, then the definition is circular.
If anything, Tay-Sachs is a good example of how Jews are so insular (elitist and racist) and refuse to integrate into other cultures.
"You quoted it, thus you are claiming its truth."
No, quoting an author (which I didn't, I just posted a link to an article about the book he wrote, an article in an Israeli newspaper) does not imply "claiming it's truth." And Hitler is dead. Dr. Sands is very much alive and well, and I am sure he has a public email address. He is waiting for responses from people like you, if you read his final quote in the article.
"The double standard that somehow you think a converted Jew is less than a real Jew. Yet, I doubt you'd list a naturalized American as less American than one born in the USA."
Whatever. Then I guess the Jews are the Master Race. The Chosen Ones, uh, I mean, the Cohen Ones.
Let them enjoy their ethnic cleansing...
If you are interested, I can point you to an academic paper which proves that Palestinians and Israelis are genetically identical. The worldwide non-Jewish non-Conspiracy ruined his career and his life, but that is another story.
"it doesn't matter how many STATES have nuclear weapons, they can never use them against Israel
the only real risk that nuclear weapons pose is that someone who is not, or who believes that they are not, subject to retaliation will acquire one."
Perhaps I didn't state it clearly enough, but that is exactly my point: Libya, Syria, Iran and Pakistan are all states that had no nuclear programs in the recent past. All have made significant progress with Pakistan actually building a small arsenal.
I agree no state would nuke Israel for fear of reprisal. But it is only a matter of time before a non-state entity acquires one, possibly from an aforementioned state. I would add that military pounding of Gaza, regardless of justification, hastens this process by agitating radical elements.
In my mind, Israel's best and only longterm defense is to integrate.
second class citizenship and the difference between what jews under arab rule today would face and the treatment of arabs in israel is obvious to any rational honest person.
Why? In 50 years of cold war and proxy war between the Soviets and the west the soviets managed to keep their nuclear weapons out of the hands to their non state clients. Other nuclear armed states would have every incentive to do the same.
The fact that the author readily and casually admits that both political aspirations and low national self-esteem motivated the ongoing butchery in Gaza makes the action all the more repellent.
If Israelis collectively need to need to recapture the "exhilarating" feeling of their glory days, let them do so on their own dime. There is nothing "smart" or "daring" about slaughtering a bunch of unarmed women and children from the sky, though there is plenty about such acts that is "vengeful."
Our present support for Israel's military is no less heinous than our previous support for Noriega, Pinochet or Saddam; indeed, our present one-sided support for Israel is even worse than the afore-mentioned misadventures, since those guys at least seemed to serve a short-term purpose. Our relationship with Israel, on the other hand, serves neither any political or economic interest but, to the contrary, has only brought Israel's blood feud onto our shores.
Just as we learned (albeit, belatedly) the error of propping up Saddam and Latin American dictators, and finally cut them loose, so do we need to disassociate ourselves from the twisted psychology and bad juju presently festering in Israel and Gaza. While we can't expel Israeli leadership as we did our own cowboy diplomats, we can stop sponsoring their misadventures. If Israel then chooses to continue their own little apartheid/concentration camps program in their own neighborhood, let them do so in their own name, not ours.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
