Accepting the other in Palestine

Drums of war were beating in early June 1967 in the waning days of my internship at the American University of Beirut hospital. We were excited at the prospect of a just war that would liberate Palestine, allowing those of us who became refugees in 1948 to go back to our homes. We were also fully confident of victory against the small Israeli Army.

I distinctly remember a conversation I had in the cafeteria with professor of surgery, Dr. Abdel-Latif Yashruti, an urbane, British-trained aristocrat. His sharp blue eyes fixed on mine, he asked, "What makes you think that we will win?" I began reciting the number of planes and tanks that Arab armies had in comparison to the puny numbers of the Israeli military. Calmly, he said "Look. I left Haifa once. I have lived in many places but I like it here. I don't want to become a refugee again." My response - impolite, rash and most regrettable - questioned the patriotism and wisdom of my professor.

In the ensuing years, I have come to recognize that the wars of 1948 and 1967 bracket, like bookends holding together a number of volumes on a shelf, the objective, realizable political realities in the conflict. They define the constraints that the existence and persistence of both Israelis and Palestinians place upon each other's ambitions in the small area of geographic Palestine - as it is said, "between the river and the sea."

The war of 1948 marked a definitive end to Palestinian and Arab hopes that the Zionist movement would fail to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. Palestinians could no longer aspire to achieve the kind of independence that other Arab states had achieved, or for Palestine to remain an "Arab" Palestine. Moreover, the effect of the war was so devastating to Palestinian society that it took almost 20 years to reconstitute a national political identity. Much of that society continues on its uneven road to recovery to this day, almost 60 years later.

The decisive nature of the 1948 war in establishing Israel as a state that would be part of the political landscape for the foreseeable future was dramatically reinforced in 1967. Any enduring Arab hope for a reversal of the outcome of 1948 seemed utterly implausible. The wars of 1948 and 1967, in this sense, clearly established the limitations of Palestinian and Arab aspirations - Israel was here to stay. Ironically, however, the era since 1967 has demonstrated analogous limits to the ambitions of some Israelis and Israeli governments in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Obviously, it is impossible to look back on the past 40 years, particularly as a Palestinian, without noting the terrible effects of the occupation on the Palestinians. Understandably, critiques of the occupation tend often to focus on the systematic denial of rights to the occupied population. But it is more significant, from a political point of view, that these repressive measures, and two major conflicts - the first and second intifadas (the first largely unarmed, the second disastrously militarized) - in the Occupied Territories have not consolidated Israeli control in any meaningful sense. Resistance to Israeli control, manifested in many legitimate and some profoundly illegitimate forms, is stronger than ever. Almost no one outside the settler movement sees the situation as viable or defensible, and everyone has a plan for change because the realities are so plainly intolerable.

The challenge facing Israelis in recent decades has been a mirror image of that faced by most Arabs in the early decades of the conflict, particularly between 1948 and 1967; that is to say a recognition of the limitations of one's own political ambitions, the permanent presence of the other national constituency, the legitimacy of its national rights, and the necessity, therefore, for an accommodation involving two states living together in peace and security.

While most observers see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as divided principally along nationalist lines, the more significant division is between those on both sides who understand and accept the finality of the outcome of the 1948 war and those who do not. Those who recognize 1948 as a decisive historical moment understand that it established insurmountable limitations on both Palestinian and Israeli nationalism, and that the armistice lines of 1949 have come to constitute the only serious basis upon which the conflict can be resolved.

The 1967 war was crucial for demonstrating this to many Arabs, although certainly it took time to translate these obvious realities into political positions. The years since 1967 should by now have had a similar effect on most Israelis, none of whom can any longer fail to understand that Palestinians are not going anywhere, they will not disappear, and they will not agree to live as non-citizens of a non-state in their own country.

We must all recognize that there will be no peace until the national aspirations and dignity of both peoples are respected. The only formula that can fulfill these conditions is the creation of a state of Palestine to live alongside Israel.

It is up to all friends of Israel and Palestine to cross the national religious, racial and ethnic fault lines that divide us and form a national and international alliance for two states. The "realities on the ground" that have prevented an ending of the conflict must be overcome by this vision, and by the political forces that we bring to bear on it.

Young men and women in the Middle East, struggling with their sense of injured pride and violated justice, coping with fear, vengeance, poverty and greed, can only be spared the fate of earlier generations by a wise and courageous leadership on all sides, relentless in its pursuit of a historic compromise. My professor of surgery understood what I did not in 1967, but what I have come to embrace wholeheartedly since: the future is more important than the past.

Ziad Asali is president of the American Task Force on Palestine. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.

Time for the “standard Islamic terrorist post”...

—

I posted this on another thread, so it may have some reference to some other items, but for the most part, it also would fit in here (i.e., the “Religion of Peace” and in refernce to the above article).

From — http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1826249/posts?page=78#78

You said — “You’re probably correct, I only caught a few minutes of a ‘replay’ show that had aired earlier in the week. Very worthy of a listening to by all.(wish I’d heard the whole show)”

—

Here is Walid Shoebat’s website —
http://www.shoebat.com/

Wikipedia Article —
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walid_Shoebat

Some YouTube videos —
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=walid+shoebat&search=Search

Jan Markell (radio host) for KKMS (Minneapolis), Radio Archives —
http://www.olivetreeviews.org/radio/mp3/
[use search function and plug in “Shoebat”]

—

On that Wikipedia article, I was reading one part of it, which said —

Sheila Musaji said of Shoebat that “This is an extremist Christian terrorist. This is not a former terrorist. This is a man who used to hate Jews and now hates Muslims, who used to commit violence against Jews and now justifies violence against Muslims.”

Now, that’s absolutely ridiculous, since He’s a Christian. He does not espouse violence towards Muslims. What he does is point out the violence that they have towards the West, Christians and Jews. However, to that mindset (i.e., the Muslims) if you point out *their hate* — then you are encouraging hate (obviously because you’re pointing out their hate). And if you point out *their violence* — then you are encouraging violence (again, obviously because you’re pointing out their violence). That’s basically the “rationale” for the Muslims to say that he espouses hate and violence — soley on the basis of him pointing out where it’s really coming from.

Secondly — the Wikipedia article says — “He [Will Youmans; see below...] also argues that Shoebat’s religious convictions, including the belief that Jews will be forced to “accept Christ or perish in hell” when the Rapture comes, are intrinsically anti-Semitic.”

Now, that’s another ridiculous statement. It’s, first of all, true that he is a Christian. And secondly, it’s *very well known* that Christians teach that Christianity is *totally exclusive* to any other religion in the world and that the *only way* to God the Father (as Jesus said, Himself) is through Jesus. It is emphasized, many times in the Bible, that there is no other way. And then, thirdly, it’s also a well-known Christian doctrine that any who refuse to accept Christ as Savior will perish in Hell. Therefore, these *three givens* from Christianity apply “across the board” — to any race, any nationality, any group, or any-anything.

So, you take those three fundamentals of the Christian doctrine and faith and then you put “Jews” in there (without mentioning all the other people in the world that it applies to) — and then you say, “See there, he’s anti-semitic!” That’s an absolutely twisted argument to try to gain some sympathy, or “hearing” on the basis of throwing out the phrase “anti-semitic”.

And then, another statement from Will Youmans — “Furthermore, Youmans contends that Shoebat’s beliefs are incompatible with efforts towards peace, because of the premillennial, dispensational doctrine that the Second Coming of Christ will be hastened by conflict in the Middle East.”

Now, while many may not know anything about premillennial or dispensational doctrine (in Christianity), at least I do. You’ll notice that I’ve got it mentioned on my FReeper home page. I’ve had it there for a long time. And this is another type of slander or slur against some Christians — the *idea* that the Second Coming of Christ will be *hastened* by conflict in the Middle East.

It’s like someone is saying, “Well, they think that the Second Coming will arrive faster if there is conflict, so these people are going to work for as much conflict as they can create over there, hence, all their ‘hate speech’ and ‘violence’ against the Muslims.”

That’s such a ridiculous idea that any of these Christians would “work for” or “support” violence over there, for the sake of speeding up the Second Coming. These Christians would support Israel defending itself, and of course, these very same Muslims complaining about this “supposed hate and violence” of the Christians, would prefer that Israel “not defend itself” — so they would have an easier time of wiping them out. And, by *their logic* — Israel defending itself is “perpetrating violence” upon the Muslims. They really do have twisted logic when you listen to them.

I will say that those Christians who do adhere to the premillennial and dispensational views, definitely see that the Bible talks about the coming battle of Armageddon and the 7-years of Tribulation, in which the entire world and the various armies of the nations (of the world) are brought to a battlefield in the Middle East. That they do see as coming. However, they are not encouraging it or supporting it. It’s simply something that is coming *on its own*.

—

See below for a brief bio of Will Youmans —

Will Youmans (born in Detroit, MI in 1978) is a Palestinian-American writer, activist and hip-hop artist.

Youmans is an outspoken advocate for the cause of Palestinian human rights and a critic of American foreign policy in the Middle East. He co-hosts and co-produces a show, “What’s Happening?,” on the American channel of the international satellite TV station Arab Radio and Television (ART). He has written extensively in various media outlets, including the San Francisco Chronicle, Michigan Daily, Daily Californian, Counterpunch. He writes a weekly column with the Arab-American News.

—

Another spokesperson about the aims and hate and violence of Muslims is Brigitte Gabriel from Lebanon. She had to live through the Islamic violence perpetrated on her and her family while she was growing up in her teen years. She now lives in the U.S. have a husband and family and goes on speaking tours around the country letting people know what the *aims* of Muslims are (— basically out for our destruction... —).

Her website —
http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/

And, if you get a chance to see this video, you should — “Obsession.” An abridged 12-minute version is here (you can purchase the full version if you want) —

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/trailer-12min.php

—

And then, for a listing of all the Islamic terrorists attacks, see the following. It’s over 1,000 pages, organized by dates (the years). You can view smaller segments that way.

http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Terrorism_Timeline.Islam

Go to the homepage of this site and get a lot of other information. This guy actually met with Al Qaida (a very dangerious thing to do) and wrote of the experience and gives his knowledge of the problem.

http://prophetofdoom.net/

His book is called “Tea with Terrorists” (interesting...)
http://teawithterrorists.com/

—

For a lot of videos from Islamic countries and the hate they constantly preach to all their people, including kids from kindergarten, up... see...

http://memritv.org/

Their main website is —
http://www.memri.org/

—

Another person that speaks out (her father was a terrorist...) is Nonie Darwish. You’ll find her interviewed several times on Jan Markell’s program (up above).

http://www.arabsforisrael.com/

—

Well, that’s a lot of information there, for anyone. Look at it all and learn an awfully lot...

Regards,
Star Traveler

Now, while some will say that most Muslims are actually peace-loving — there are others who will say — “Well, duh..., we know that most of them are like that!” [i.e., supporting Islamic terrorism...]

The fact of the matter is that most don’t know that the bulk of the population is like that — and if you told them, they still wouldn’t believe you. I include this other post to another poster, saying that very thing (i.e., like “duh!”...)

You said — “Are we supposed to be surprised about this stuff?”

—

Well, I find that most people are surprised by this stuff. They presume that what is going on with the Islamic jihadists is simply a small minority, who are “hijacking” an otherwise peaceful religion (since our own government tells them that).

The actual truth of the matter is that there is no such thing as a “moderate Musilm”. There may be a few who are “backslidden” Muslims, who are not practicing their religio-governmental idealogy — but they are not “moderate Muslims.” There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, regardless of what the media or the Bush Administration wants to try and tell you. The religion is not being hijacked.

In fact, if there were any such thing as a moderate Muslim, the real Muslims could *legitimately* make the claim (and prove it) that it is the “moderate Muslim who is hijacking the religion.

And you should see —
http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/trailer-12min.php

What people don’t realize is that about 60-70% of the Muslim world population is solidly in the jihadists camp, in that they will provide support by various means, by money, by protesting, by participating in jihad, by whatever means they have at their disposal at the time.

FURTHERMORE, it’s actually *unimaginable* (to our own minds, here in this country) how *indoctrinated* all the Muslims are, in each of their countries, to the constant barrage of hate and kill and Islam will take over the world. It’s *so pervasive* — everywhere — it’s that if you were to tell people *how pervasive* it is, everday, with these people — most Americans would be sure that you were exagerrating and trying to over-emphasize it.

The fact of the matter is that it’s almost *impossible* to over-emphasize the situation, because “in real life” they (themselves) have over-emphasized this to an extreme. One simply cannot do that, in normal speech, to other Americans to get the point across.

So, back to your question — “Are we supposed to be surprised about this stuff?” I find that “yes, most Americans are surprised!” when they find out the true nature of it and how pervasive it is. They will simply *continue to disbelieve it* — no matter how much information you give them...

Regards,
Star Traveler

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.