As the Maronites used to be known.
With Richard Holbrooke on the case, expect the Taliban to be given the whole of Afghanistan (Pashtun or not) and the Pashtun parts of Pakistan, and anyone who opposes or has ever opposed their rule of those areas to be hauled before the International Criminal Court for a show-trial ending in a judicial or extrajudicial execution.
But George Mitchell is another story. He may be a part-Irish Maronite, but he is a Maronite all the same.
So, he could deliver an Ulster-style carve-up between Hamas and the most recalcitrant West Bank settlers, with everyone else as permanent junior partners in a coalition of which no one was therefore asking any questions.
But he is far more likely to deliver whatever is best for the Maronites, and with them the (in Palestine, far more numerous) Melkites and Latin Catholics, as well as the Syrian Catholics, the Greek Orthodox, the Armenians, the Anglicans and the Lutherans.
That involves neither Hamas (never mind Hizbollah, whom the Maronites know very well indeed), nor anything really recognisable as Zionism, whatever terminology or trappings might have to be retained.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What makes you think that Mr. Mitchell is religious to the extent of pursuing the interest of his faith over that of his employer?
ReplyDeleteYour description strikes me as a different man than the one who has been a public servant in the US for more than a generation and who has argued that God does not take politic sides and who has well known views regarding the Arab Israeli conflict.
There is also the more obvious point that the US has no expectation of there being a settlement to the dispute, even if Mr. Mitchell will try his best - which, in fact, he will. Most people who are familiar with the thinking of people in power say that the perception here is that there is no settlement to be reached, only the management of the dispute so that it might, with a bit of luck, become somewhat less violent.
Those ARE the interests of his employer, who, as much as anything esle, would not otherwise have appointed George Mitchell to this particular role.
ReplyDeleteThe Arab Christians, the West's real front line in the Levant.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely so.
ReplyDeleteAnd their occupancy of the Holy Land is the only fulfilment of Biblical prophecy on the matter.
So no one else is entitled to live there?
ReplyDeleteOf course they are.
ReplyDeleteBut no one else's living there is the fulfilment of Biblical prophecy.
If anyone's is.
Mr. Lindsay,
ReplyDeleteMr. Obama is not a Maronite. His aims are not to advance or not advance a Maronite agenda. Moreover, Maronites tend to be, at least in the US, pretty pro-Israel because they see the Israelis refusing to bow down to the Muslim agenda for the region, something that has considerable appeal among Maronites.
Mr. Obama has no agenda to carve Israel up. That is in your head. He does have an agenda to attempt to appease certain Muslim Arab sentiments without harming America's commitments and relations with other countries. But, if you really think he thinks he can resolve the Arab Israelis dispute when the Arabs in Palestine are so deeply divided and when Jews in Israel think that ceding land will harm their interests, you are fooling yourself. You might consider that he is well plugged into Israeli opinion, since his chief of staff knows the Israelis well, to say the least.
Obama has appointed Mitchell. So it is quite clear where his sympathies lie, namely with those equally virulent in their hositility both to political Islam and to any meaningful form of Zionism, and with very good cause.
ReplyDeleteThis is as clear as where Bill Clinton's sympathies lay when he appointed Mitchell to Northern Ireland.
There are, after all, a million more Arabs than Jews in America. And Arab Christians are the sort of doctrinally and morally conservative, but often overlooked, Christians whom the Democrats could dislocate, or keep away, from the Republican Party by doing certain things. Such as this.
Clinton, of course, was trying to win back Irish-American votes that had been lost by support for abortion.
As for Rahm Emanuel, he has unambiguously declared himself American rather than Israeli by taking his current appointment.
But consider that if he had fought in the British or Australian Army alongside American forces in Afghanistan or Iraq, then he would have been deemed to have renounced his American citizenship.
Yet by fighting in an army which has never sent a single troop to a single American war, he has not been deemed to have doen any such thing.
Mr. Emanuel never took the uniform of a foreign country. Rather, he did what Americans have done in innumerable numbers of wars, assisted a country threatened.
ReplyDeleteMr. Lindsay, I really do not understand your hostility to Israel. I note your comments across this site. They are fairly uniformly hostile. What have Jews done to you that makes you not like them? I do not get it. My Maronite friends and even my Muslim friends have nothing bad to say about Israel. Is this a British thing? Is it a Christian thing?
If he'd done that for any other country, he'd have been lucky to be let back into the US, never mind to become a Congressman or White House Chief of Staff.
ReplyDeleteI accept Israel as a fact of life, complete with a right to engage in legitimate self-defence. But the fact remains that Israel was founded by people who spent the Second World War blowing up British civil servants (many of them Jewish) and photographing the hanging of teenage British conscripts with barbed wire, in the service of an overtly Marxist cause. We have not forgotten. Nor will we.
Wholly unreciprocated American deference to Israel dates only from the 1967 War, and contributes significantly to the impression of America as Bushland, cut off from the rest of the world and with no understanding of it from top to bottom.
We had thought that that had ended with the election of Obama. And I for one still do think that. The appointment of George Mitchell more than backs up that optimistic view.
As for being a Christian thing, well, no, a state from which a born Jew baptised in infancy is disbarred from citizenship, even though such Jews certainly died in the Holocaust, does not exactly inspire sympathy.
I assume that, like Palestinian Christianity and so much else (the complete non-recognition of Reform or Conservative Judaism by the State of Israel, for example), that is just one of the realities that the people of Bushland were not allowed to know.
But Bushland is no more.
Thank God.
Mr. Lindsay,
ReplyDeleteThere were, in fact, Jews who did attack the British during WWII. That is certainly the case. They were, however, a very tiny group of people. And, they were, as you know full well if you have studied this matter with any care, routinely turned in by the majority party to the British authorities. Moreover, a great many of the country's Jews supported the British during the war and, on top of that, a great many volunteered to help the British by joining the British military. So, it seems to me that you are making an excuse, holding a resentment against all due to the actions of a very few.
Incidentally, have you forgiven the Americans for driving the British out of what became the USA? Or, is there a grudge there also? I was taught in Sunday school to believe in forgiveness. Is that taught in British Sunday school?
You next claim that Israel has not reciprocated to the US for its relationship with the US. How is that a reason - assuming it were really factual, which it is not - for you, from Britain, to object to Israel? That strikes me as a totally bizarre. You, so far as I can discern, are British, not American. So, your objection strikes me as a resentment of some sort.
Mr. Bush may well not understand the world. I have no brief that he does. However, what does that have to do with your reason for not liking Israel? Again, that is an excuse and is certainly not a real reason for your views. Which is to say, I see resentment lurking in the background of your comment.
You claim that Palestinian Christianity has not been allowed to thrive by the Israelis. That, however, is untrue. Surely, Christianity is better tolerated in Israel than Judaism is in Britain - where synagogues are defaced and Jews are attacked on the street. In fact, Israel is starkly alone in the Middle East in its toleration of Christianity. That is why the Christian population of Israel is growing, not declining as is the the case everywhere else in the Middle East. In Palestinian Arab areas, Christians are fleeing, many of them taken in by the Israelis, due to the "tolerance" shown them by the Muslim majority. And, look a bit wider in the Arab world. How many tens of millions of Christians have already fled? They are surely not fleeing due to Israel. In this regard, I would strongly recommend that you read this article.
Your discussion about Reform and Conservative Judaism strikes me as somewhat misinformed. It is true that the Orthodox have a privileged position and attempt to undermine other Jewish sects. No doubt the Israelis, if and when they eventually find a way out of their problems, will either attend to such matter or lose support from most American Jews. But, that Americans are uniformed regarding the privileges held by the Orthodox is simply untrue while the problems for non-Orthodox sects is exaggerated in your thinking - which is why Reform and Conservative Jews continue to support Israel. I really wonder why that should matter to a British Christian anyway when it is not that major a concern to Reform and Conservative Jews. It is beyond me. Again, there is a resentment running through your theme.
By the way, you say you support Israel's right of self-defense. That is what people in Europe say all the time. The problem here is that, in fact, there seem to be no instances where that support is forthcoming. So, I ask you, what sort of circumstances would you not object to Israel defending herself? My bet is that there are no such circumstances.
What I was asking for was your real objection to Israel. What I read instead was a series of excuses that could not possibly be your real concern - as if you really care whether the US benefits from its relationship with Israel. This all suggests to me that you have a deep resentment.
How about setting forth your real reasons.
"They were, however, a very tiny group of people"
ReplyDeleteBut they were the ones who set up the State of Israel. Deep in to the 1980s, my father could not watch Yitzhak Shamir on the news.
"Moreover, a great many of the country's Jews supported the British during the war"
Which country? If you mean Britain, then that is true. But they didn't set up the State of Israel.
"Incidentally, have you forgiven the Americans for driving the British out of what became the USA?"
That's not well within living memory. Although it is true that some loyal Canadian subjects of the Crown retain their keys and their title deeds, just like Palestinians.
"You next claim that Israel has not reciprocated to the US for its relationship with the US. How is that a reason - assuming it were really factual, which it is not - for you, from Britain, to object to Israel?"
It isn't. It is a reason for you in the US to object to Israel. Why don't you?
" Surely, Christianity is better tolerated in Israel than Judaism is in Britain"
Oh, don't be so ridiculous! Just how hysterical are the lies now being peddled by the Israel-worshipping, Europe-reviling medai in the US?
"In fact, Israel is starkly alone in the Middle East in its toleration of Christianity"
Utter rubbish! Christian festivals are public holidays in Syria, civil servants get Sunday morning off even though Sunday is a working day, and several provinces have Christian majorities. There are three reserved seats for Christians in the Iranian Parliament, as well as one for a Jew. Iraq's Christians were far better off before the invasion, and are now the subject of a planned genocide. And so one could go on.
"the problems for non-Orthodox sects is exaggerated in your thinking"
Their marriages and conversions are not considered valid, and their rabbinical qulaifications not recognised. How can you "exaggerate" beyond that?
"either attend to such matter or lose support from most American Jews"
Assuming that they have it to lose. "Most American Jews" voted for Obama, the most Israel-sceptical major party nominee since ... well, who, exactly?
"as if you really care whether the US benefits from its relationship with Israel"
Well, you certainly should. Why don't you?
David,
ReplyDeleteLast night, I watched a movie called Charlie Wilson's War. In the movie, the US - or at least part of the government - was looking for a way to arm the fight against the Soviet army in Afghanistan. Who, in the end, did the US turn to? Israel, which supplied Soviet arms. And, those arms were rather effective in helping to drive out the Soviet army, which was a major issue in the US.
So, that ought to put an end to the nonsense that Israel does nothing for the US.
Regarding Christians in the Muslim world, you are misinformed, once again. I might suggest that you read Paul Marshall's meticulously researched book on the topic. It is an eyeopener.
You might also read this article.
You might want also to read this interesting symposium.
There appears to be substantial disagreement by these people with your assessment of the treatment of Christians. In fact, I think you are way off base.
Again, Christians are free to practice Christianity in Israel. In Gaza, it is illegal even to ring church bells. In the West Bank, whole towns have been looted - with deaths resulting - when a Christian man made the mistake of dating a Muslim woman.
As for why I support Israel, it is because Jews have the same rights as the rest of humanity. Again, Israel is a pioneering country, established like immigrants - just like the US. You claim there was racism. There was racism in the founders of the US also. What of it? The Americans came with a pioneering spirit. The Israelis still have that spirit. Had more Jews had such a spirit before WWII, more would have survived.
Why should you side with Arabs? I understand that they have the same rights as the rest of humanity. But, the fact is that their right does not have to come at the expense of Jews in a very small country the size of New Jersey. That is not a great problem, unless you harbor deep resentments.
Again, living among a lot of Jews, mostly reform and conservative, they are not all that concerned about Israel's Orthodox. That is a secondary concern - coming in to consideration as a distant second to Israel surviving as a country. I suggest you ask some American Jews. I have. In this instance, I have first hand information.
Again, you have yet to explain why you do not like Israel. Are you a believer in supersessionism or, more particularly, replacement theology? Are you a neo-marcion?
One last point. Israel's dominant party until the late 1970's was not the predecessor of the Likud. Most Jews in Israel supported the efforts made by the British to defeat the Nazis. A great many served in the British army and then became the mainstay of the Yeshuv's army. I suggest you read Benny Morris' book 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. In fact, it was fighting for the British that gave the Jewish army its best fighters.
I gather, from your comment, that you also have no use for the US. Those Canadian keys. Well, I think most Canadians have the good sense to realize that the fights of prior generations should be dropped. That should go for you in Britain, who lost a lot more important places than little Israel.
I'm all in favour of America, particularly now that she has re-appeared in place of Bushland, in all her job-protecting, wage-protecting, skills-protecting, entanglement-avoiding, English-speaking, Keynesian, Distributist, morally and socially conservative glory.
ReplyDeleteThose are the people who put Obama, Reid and Pelosi where they are, and who can put them right back where they were. Splendid.
And I did not say that Christians were not persecuted in the Islamic world. I said that they were not singularly well-off in Israel compared to anywhere else in the Middle East.
The Lebanese Constitution, to add another of the numerous examples that may be cited, requires the President to be a Maronoite.
There is nothing remotely "pioneer" about Israel. It is a sort of expensive American hobby, a gigantic welfare programme of the kind excoriated by many Democrats and almost all Republicans.
And I do not "side with the Arabs", something that they cannot even manage among themselves. But why should they? They side with their respective national interests. I want my country to do likewise. And I don't understand why you don't want you country to do likewise. But I am very glad it is now going to anyway.
In Lebanon, how many Christians died in the civil war which Israel stopped? Something like 100,000, by my memory. Perhaps the BBC forgot to report on the story.
ReplyDeleteIn Lebanon, it is due to the military strength of the Christian minority - Lebanon being a country which, like Israel, was intended to protect a specific minority, the Maronites, from persecution after the terrible massacres of 1860 - that Christians have more place in Lebanon than anywhere else in the Arab world.
By contrast, Christians in Egypt are persecuted, cannot even build Churches for the most part, Christian girls are raped but with no ability to defend themselves in court because their testimony does not count and the police will not help anyway, etc., etc. In Saudi Arabia, Christianity is illegal. In Syria, Christians are severely persecuted. The same in Iraq - both now and even under Saddam (although he was less tolerant of it).
Christians in Israel can build churches and preach to their heart's content. They can do missionary work - something basically impossible in most Arab countries since such activities would conflict with the position of Islam toward non-Muslim proselytizing.
So, as a Christian, you ought to be sensitive about how poorly Christians are treated by Muslim Arabs. Such Christians are persecuted, whether you seek to minimize it or not. As I said before, my wife's business partner is a Maronite. They have stories of Muslim "tolerance" of Christianity that would make your stomach turn.
As for British treatment of Jews compared to Israeli treatment of Christians, during the Gaza war just now quieted, there were innumerable reported instances of Jews attacked on the street and of synagogues defaced. In fact, one Church mistaken for a synagogue - because the church had the name Zion in it - was attacked in Britain.
Jews in Israel have not attacked Churches. In fact, Churches have been left to their own affairs, by and large. This tolerance, notwithstanding Churches where they teach neo-marcionism, with Jews being replaced by Palestinian Arabs. That theology, at least in the US, is considered rather hateful.
Yet, Christian groups that teach that filth in Israel are allowed to preach as hateful a theology as they like. Imagine preaching that Mohamed is not a prophet in an Arab country, to see my point.
Obama's policies are certainly not going to be anti-Israel. He has made that very clear. Mrs. Clinton, Richard Holbrooke, Dennis Ross, Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Lawrence Summers, etc., etc. will make sure of that even if such were not actually Obama's inclination. In fact, though, Obama is fervently pro-Israel, as Abner Mikva - the man who discovered Obama and convinced him to run for national office - has said. Mikva, who knows Obama really, really well called Obama the first Jewish candidate for president.
So, you will really wait in vein for Obama to turn on his friends to harm the US interest by siding with the forces of the Middle Age which, unfortunately, dominate the Arab regions. It is not going to happen. And, Obama does not want that to happen, which is why publications like The Nation Magazine are so angry, seeing him as betraying their anti-Israel agenda.
Obama will be pro-America. That means a balancing act of not molesting Israel's interests while not molesting Arab interests either. And, that means that there will be a change in some rhetoric but not in basic policy towards Israel. Or, in simple words, it means a return to Clintonism.
Lastly, Christians need to think twice about the refusal of Muslims to treat Christians well in Muslim majority countries. That Muslim Arabs have so confused European Christians to help Arabs undermine Israel while attacking Christians as well is beyond me. It is, I think, an intellectual betrayal of the first order.
So no, Israel is not the problem. The intolerance of the Arab regions is the problem that needs to be combated. And, the primary victims have been Christian - their suffering covered over by the stupid hysteria about Israel.
"In Lebanon, how many Christians died in the civil war which Israel stopped?"
ReplyDeleteA long time ago, and Israel has bombarded Lebanon since. In both cases, she was simply pressing David Ben Gurion's claim to all land south of the Litani. As she will again, no doubt.
As for much of the rest of what you have written, I don't know what you have been reading, or what drivel is being pumped out by the American mass media. "Innumerable"? There are not "innumerable" synagogues in Britain to begin with.
There have been so few of these attacks that they have barely been mentioned even in the most pro-Israeli newspapers (which are very pro-Israeli indeed), and not at all on Rupert Murdoch's Sky television network, also ferociously Zionist.
Most of the coverage has been on certain websites with, shall we say, agenda of their own. Not least war with (really rather Jew-friendly) Iran, off Obama's agenda completely as of today.
If Obama is terribly pro-Israel, then he has shown it in some very strange ways over the years, and Israel's strongest British and American supporters have decidedly failed to notice.
"Obama will be pro-America" - exactly my original point.
And I never said that there was no persecution of Christians in the Islamic world. But those who work in this field and are not dependent on Chrsitian Zionist money (Catholics, for example) have little or no good to say about Israel, either.
You indicate that there have been few attacks recently on Jews recently. Come now, Mr. Lindsay. I read papers all over the world. They report something quite different than what you state. Here, for example, is an excerpt from an article in the Jerusalem Post in a January 16, 2009 article titled UK Muslims call to curb anti-Semitism:
ReplyDeleteThe Community Security Trust (CST) has reported a sharp rise in anti-Semitic incidents in recent weeks, with more than 150 reported attacks on Jews, Jewish-owned property and even an arson attempt on a London synagogue.
"We are deeply saddened to hear about anti-Semitic assaults on British Jews, and a recent arson attack on a London synagogue. Although the perpetrators are yet unknown, we unreservedly condemn attacks on innocent British citizens and the desecration of all places of worship," the Muslim leaders wrote.
Are you familiar with CST? It is a Jewish British organization. I trust you must realize that Muslim leaders would not apologize to Jewish leaders for Antisemitic violence unless it was pretty clearly established. In any event, The Independent has reported on incidents as well:
They included an arson attack on a synagogue in north west London on Sunday night.
In the same article:
On New Year's Eve, a gang of youths alarmed people in Golders Green, north west London, by trying to enter Jewish shops while shouting "Jew" at individuals.
Nearby, a Jewish man was pulled from his car and assaulted by three men, but not seriously hurt.
The CST has also noted anti-Semitic graffiti in Jewish areas across London, with slogans sprayed on walls including "Kill Jews".
Most of the five incidents outside London were in north west England, including graffiti on one synagogue, anti-Semitic hate mail sent to another one, and "Hamas HQ" graffiti on a Jewish building in Manchester.
It seems that these articles show you to be mistaken. I think that what can be said is that British papers and media may have chosen, for whatever reason, to downplay Antisemitism in Britain to the extent that you were ignorant of it.
Changing topics, what can be stated factually about what is occurring in the Arab regions is that there is substantial hostility to all non-Muslim groups. Such breaks out into violence on frequent occasions as has been reported by numerous websites that track such things closely. You might try looking at reports on Compass Direct News, which dedicates itself to making a record of Christians who are persecuted. Evidently, they see things differently than you.
Here is an excerpt from a story in today's Compass Direct:
EGYPT: JUDGE TELLS OF DESIRE TO KILL CHRISTIAN
Bail granted to convert from Islam barred from legally changing religious ID.
ISTANBUL, January 27 (Compass Direct News) – After her arrest at Cairo’s airport on Dec. 13 while attempting to flee anti-Christian hostilities in Egypt, convert Martha Samuel Makkar was granted bail on Saturday (Jan. 24), but not before a judge took her aside and said he would like to kill her, according to her lawyer. Attorney Nadia Tawfiq said Judge Abdelaa Hashem questioned Makkar extensively about her Christian faith during the hearing. Makkar explained her reasons for conversion, avowing her Christian faith and repudiating the judge’s claims that converting from Islam to Christianity was impossible. “Then he said, ‘I want to talk with Martha alone,’ so we all left the room, and he said to her, ‘Nobody changes from Muslim to Christian – you are a Muslim,’” Tawfiq said. “And she said, ‘No, I am a Christian.’ He told her, ‘If I had a knife now, I would kill you.’ [Makkar] came out crying and depressed, but at least he gave the decision to let her go free.” Makkar, 24, said police and members of her extended family have threatened her incessantly, with the latter threatening to kill her.
Sounds real friendly, doesn't it? I suggest you read the entire article and browse through its archives. You will find a lot of really sick stuff that contradicts your viewpoint that largely downplays hatred of Christians by Muslim Arabs and other Muslims.
In fact, Christians are in the same boat, from the point of view of Muslims, as Jews. In this regard, you might consider reading Vahakn Dadrian's seminal work - the leading work on the topic - on the history of the Armenian genocide, History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus. In the first chapter of the book, he explains the theological position of classical Islam, as it was followed in the Ottoman Empire (which was his concern) towards non-Muslims of one of the permitted faiths. Before becoming a lawyer, I studied religion as my college area of concentration and, moreover, have studied Islamic theology and law extensively. I can assure you that Professor Dadrian has it exactly correct. As he writes:
The Islamic doctrines embraced by the Ottoman state circumscribed the status of non-Muslims within its jurisdiction. The Ottoman system was not merely a theocracy but a subjugative political organization based on the principle of fixed superordination and subordination governing the legal relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, and entailing social and political disabilities for the latter. The Koran, the centerpiece of the Şeriat, embodies some 260 verses, most of them uttered by Mohammed in Mecca, enjoining the faithful to wage cihad, holy war, against the "disbelievers," e.g., those who do not profess the "true faith" (hakk din), and to "massacre" (kital) them. Moreover, the verse "Let there be no coercion in religion" is superseded and thus cancelled (mensuh) by Mohammed's command to "wage war against the unbelievers and be severe unto them." The verse that has specific relevance for the religious determination of the legal and political status of non-Muslims whose lands have been conquered by the invading Islamic warriors has this command: "Fight against them who do not follow the religion of truth until they pay tribute [ciziye] by right of subjection, and they be reduced low." This stipulation is the fundamental prerequisite to ending warfare and introducing terms of clemency.
Such, in fact, is the pre-disposition towards non-Muslims that is taught today at Al-Azhar University in Cairo. It is also what is taught in all major schools in the Islamic world. The doctrine is well explained by the father of the modern study of Islam, Ignaz Goldhizer - a Jew who was enamored of Islam and was known to pray with Muslims. He was, in fact, the first non-Muslim allowed to attend Al-Azhar University as a student. He explained at the turn of the 20th Century:
In addition to the religious duties imposed upon each individual professing Islam, the collective duty of the "jihad" (= "fighting against infidels") is imposed on the community, as represented by the commander of the faithful. Mohammed claimed for his religion that it was to be the common property of all mankind, just as he himself, who at first appeared as a prophet of the Arabs, ended by proclaiming himself the prophet of a universal religion, the messenger of God to all humanity, or, as tradition has it, "ila al-aḥmar wal-aswad" (to the red and the black). For this reason unbelief must be fought with the force of weapons, in order that "God's word may be raised to the highest place." Through the refusal to accept Islam, idolaters have forfeited their lives. Those "who possess Scriptures" ("ahl al-kitab"), in which category are included Jews, Christians, Magians, and Sabians, may be tolerated on their paying tribute ("jizyah") and recognizing the political supremacy of Islam (sura ix. 29). The state law of Islam has accordingly divided the world into two categories: the territory of Islam ("dar al-Islam") and the territory of war. ("dar al-ḥarb"), i.e., territory against which it is the duty of the commander of the faithful ("amir al-mu'minin") to lead the community in the jihad.
Returning to Professor Dadrian's famous book, he explains the impact of non-Muslims being conquered by an Islamic force as follows:
The Ottoman Empire's Islamic doctrines and traditions, reinforced by the martial institutions of the State, resulted in the emergence of principles of common law which held sway throughout the history of the Ottoman socio-political system. The Sultan-Khalif's newly incorporated non-Muslim subjects were required to enter into a quasi-legal contract, the Akdi Zimmet, whereby the ruler guaranteed the "safeguard" (ismet) of their persons, their civil and religious liberties, and, conditionally, their properties, in exchange for the payment of poll and land taxes, and acquiescence to a set of social and legal disabilities. These contracts marked the initiation of a customary law in the Ottoman system that regulated the unequal relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. Ottoman common law thus created the status of "tolerated infidels a caste inferior to that of their fellow Moslem subjects." The Turkish scholar N. Berkes further pointed out that the intractability of this status was a condition of the Şeriat, which "could not admit of [non-Muslim] equality in matters over which it ruled.
My point here is not to disparage Muslims. It is to note how Christians (and Jews) are understood by someone who might take traditional Muslim doctrine as truth. I do not know who believes such things today but, somehow, prejudice against those who are different is a powerful force in human history, especially when that prejudice is still taught as divine truth, as it is in the Muslim regions.
On the other hand, the European powers in the 19th Century forced the Muslim regions to treat non-Muslims better. The most famous of these changes was the Tanzimet reforms. Having studied this pretty carefully, you will note that these reforms were bitterly hated and vehemently resisted - both for destroying privileges held but also and more importantly for violating God's ordering of the world. Once European power retreated from the Muslim regions after WWII, there have certainly been many calls for adopting traditional ways, meaning re-instituting the privileges which, according to classical Islam, are properly given to Muslims. In fact, that is a major goal of the Islamists.
Which is to say, your effort to downplay hostility to non-Muslims in the Muslim region is not only factually wrong, it is morally and pragmatically foolish, since a major goal of the Islamists is to recreate privileges for Muslims.
Changing topics, you indicated that those who get no money from Zionists have nothing much good to say about Israel. As I noted above, prejudice is a very strong force in human history. And, finding devout Christians with nothing good to say about things involving Jews is - how should I put it? - the norm and totally expected. It thus is a meaningless point you have made. Finding devout Christians that have nice things to say about things involving Jews is, on the other hand, novel and interesting.
I would be interested in thoughts of those who do harbor the impact, religious or cultural, of a theological interpretation of Judaism and Jews. That is a tall order, especially in the Middle East.
I do not dispute a lot of what you say about Islam, but the fact remains that Christians are not particularly well-off in Israel, and that no one who works with the churches there claims that they are.
ReplyDeleteWhere are the Christian public holidays and the Christian-majority provinces, as in Syria? Where are the reserved Christian seats in Parliament, as in Iran? Where is the constitutional requirement that the President be a Christian, as in Lebanon? And so on.
By contrast, an ethnic Jew baptised in infancy (such as would have been killed in the Holocaust, as many were) is ineligible for Israeli citizenship. And, again, so on.
As for things like the Community Security Trust, well, as I said before, agenda of their own. If there were some sort of pogrom going on in Britain, then it would be all over the national media, not least because those media contain very many Jewish journalists.
That the best those trying to spread this blood libel have been able to do has been to place it in The Jerusalem Post says it all. Even a much higher percentage increase, regrettable though that would be, would still be an increase on practically zero beforehand.
Mainstream Jewish leaders are always at pains to insist how extremely tolerant and safe this country is. It is crazy fringe elements that say otherwise. But, unfortunately, they know how to shout very loudly indeed.
You write: "Where are the Christian public holidays and the Christian-majority provinces, as in Syria? Where are the reserved Christian seats in Parliament, as in Iran? Where is the constitutional requirement that the President be a Christian, as in Lebanon? And so on."
ReplyDeleteWhy would Israel have official Christian holidays? Does Britain have official Jewish holidays? My clients in Britain tell me that your country is, in a way, phasing out Christian terminology for its holidays but I would be surprised if there were an official day off for Jewish holidays. Am I wrong?
Why should there be reserved seats in government for Christians? There are no reserved seats for non-Christians in Britain. So, are you saying that Britain is remiss? Such would be the case if your comment is meaningful. Or, must Israel follow Lebanon's lead and have its civil wars - wars far deadlier than any Israel has had -?
Why should there be a requirement for a Christian to have a set aside place in the government?
If these are the best you can do, then Christians must have it pretty good in Israel - since your country has none of these set asides for Jews - nor should it.
In any event, the fact is that Christians have been part of the government (i.e. in the Cabinet) in Israel, have been in the foreign service as ambassadors, have been on the Israeli High Court, etc., etc.. By the way, so have Muslims. So, I do not see your point, unless your idea is to turn Israel into Lebanon - certainly the country that has had the most suffering of any in the Arab regions (except for Sudan, where more than a million Christians were killed and where Christians were sold into slavery - the slaves being purchased not only by Sudanese Muslims but by Muslims in the Gulf states).
You write: "By contrast, an ethnic Jew baptised in infancy (such as would have been killed in the Holocaust, as many were) is ineligible for Israeli citizenship. And, again, so on."
Not so, first of all. Jews have a preference for immigration but all others, apart from those who claim to oppose Israel's existence, have the right to immigrate, subject to quotas similar to those in most other countries in the West. Hence, there have been large numbers of Christian and Muslim immigrants to the country. There are also Vietnamese immigrant in the country. All of these groups have managed to become citizens, by the way.
And, there are certainly Russian Orthodox Christians - a very large number of them - who immigrated to Israel from Russia. Many of them are Jewish by ethnicity, for the record, but their parents converted them early in life or they themselves converted. So, that, to reiterate, makes what you state wrong.
I have been in Britain numerous times. The atmosphere of the country has changed - and not for the better - over the course of this decade. Your TV news has an obsession with Israel, as if that country's doings were local news. Moreover, American Jews I met during my travels to your country were harassed for being Jewish - and they did nothing to distinguish themselves as being other than American tourists. There is, frankly, a real difference between atmosphere in your country and in the US and, no offense, your country really does not come off the better of the two.
So, I am inclined to believe that reports of people harassed on the streets, of people threatened, of even political columnists (e.g. in the retched Guardian) who demand that Jews follow the views of those hostile to Israel, etc., etc.. To this American's eyes, there are signs of deep but, perhaps unconscious, prejudice that has emerged in your country.
That is my view.
"My clients in Britain tell me that your country is, in a way, phasing out Christian terminology for its holidays"
ReplyDeleteOh, that is rather talked-up. But insofar as it is happening, it is in direct imitation of America nad her "Happy Holidays". (And for whose benefit is that, of course?)
My main point was that Christians are not singularly well-off in Israel compared to much of the rest of the Middle East. Their appointment to of the offices that you describe has been, and remains, massively controversial, in stark contrast to, say, Syria or Lebanon (or to the presence of Jews in the government of Morrocco).
"There are also Vietnamese immigrant in the country"
Which is beyond parody, really. People mock these, and the East Africans who have invented a religion based on the Old Testament brought by Christian missionaries, and the Peruvian Indians, and all the rest of them. I have done so myself.
But their shipping in in a desperate attempt to maintain a non-Arab majority - not a Jewish majority, but any non-Arab majority whatever - says a very great deal about where things are heading.
There will always be Jews there, as there always were. But Zionism, as such, is on its deathbed. If it weren't, then there would be no need of Arab Cabinet Ministers, or Supreme Court judges, or what have you.
"And, there are certainly Russian Orthodox Christians - a very large number of them - who immigrated to Israel from Russia"
Who refuse to eat kosher food, who insist on taking the IDF oath on the New Testament alone, and some of whose teenage sons have turned out to be Nazis. Zionism has consumed itself.