Who are the colonialists?

That depends on who are the legitimate owners of that land.

Are Palestinians the legitimate owners of that land? On what grounds do we think that this is the case?

Why are there only articles sympathetic to the Palestinians? This sounds one-sided.

I think Undergrad2 should check his facts before multiplying his false accusations.

If he reads my posts in several previous threads, he will find that I’ve repeatedly acknowledged that the Jews took the land from the Caananites, and are thus not the aboriginal inhabitants of the land.

He seems to have been confused about the reference to the Abrahamic convenant (or is trying to confuse people so as to deflect others from his mistaken assertions and assumptions). The reference to that covenant is not meant to prove that the Jews had the right to the land. The reference is to defend my support Justitia’s point that Undergrad2’s claim that the land was promised to Israel when the Israelites were enslaved by Pharoah is inaccurate. The fact that the promised land in the Abrahamic covenant is meant to be inherited by the offspring of Isaac, who is the ancestor of Jews, shows that Undergrad2’s claim is wrong and what Justitia points out is correct.

Also, that reference should refute the point that I merely filled out my knowledge about Abraham by logical inference. It also shows who is the one who argues from ignorance about some relevant facts about Abraham and Jews.

oops… ‘…relies completely ON logic…’

Sorry!

DAVIDIC

Besides what Justitia has pointed out about the analogy, Undergrad2’s reference to the fact that the 3 Abrahamic religions have their origins in Abraham also refutes his own claim that the land of Canaan was suddenly promised to the Israelites when they served as slaves in Egypt.

If the promise of land in the Abrahamic covenant is construed broadly as applicable to all of Arahamic (physical and spiritual) descendants, including Jews, Christians and Muslims, then Undergrad2 is wrong in claiming that the promise was made suddenly to the Israelites who were serving as slaves in Egypt, long after Abraham had received that promise.

If the promise of land in the Abrahamic covenant is construed narrowly as applicable only to the descendants of his son Isaac, then Undergrad2 is also wrong in claiming that the promise was made to the Israelites in Egypt, long after Abraham had received that promise.

Either way, Undergrad2’s own reference to the fact that the 3 Abrahamic religions have their origins in Abraham supports Justitia’s contention that Undergrad2’s claim about the time when promise was given is inaccurate.

In fact, under international law, Israel has the right to declare all-out war against the Hamas-controlled government of Gaza. In an all-out war, there would be no obligation to provide humanitarian assistance, electricity or any other services to an enemy who had started the war by an armed attack.

No one condemned Great Britain and the United States for the collateral damage it caused while trying to defeat those who attacked it during the second world war. Moreover, Germany did not deny the right of Great Britain or the United States to exist. The Hamas Charter not only denies Israel’s right to exist, it calls for the complete destruction of the Jewish state. Surely Israel has as much right to defend its citizens as did the United States and Great Britain.

Why then is Israel singled out for such ferocious criticism?

Indeed, the only reason Israel has not won overwhelming military victories in Lebanon in 2006 and in Gaza now, is that Israel has decided to engage in only limited and proportional military actions designed simply to stop the rocket attacks. Yet it is being condemned both for not winning a decisive victory and for killing too many civilians.

Hamas has learned how to manipulate the media’s coverage of Israeli military actions. They deliberately fire their rockets from behind civilian shields in order to provoke Israel to respond and kill civilians. They are then ready to bring out the cameras to record and transmit every civilian death around the world.

Well, not quite every civilian death. The day before Israel launched its air attack against Hamas, Hamas fired a rocket in the general direction of Sderot. The rocket fell short of its mark and landed in Gaza – killing two young Palestinian girls. Hamas, which imposes total censorship in Gaza, refused to allow cameras to record or transmit pictures of these dead Palestinian girls, because they were killed not by Israeli rockets, but rather by Palestinian rockets.

The Hamas tactic is encouraged by selective condemnation of Israel. Such condemnation creates a win-win situation for Hamas terrorism. Every time they kill an Israeli civilian, they win; every time Israel kills a Palestinian civilian, Hamas also wins.

The only way to defeat this cynical tactic is for the international community to place the blame squarely on Hamas for engaging in the double war crime of targeting Israeli civilians and using Palestinian civilians as human shields.

Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard. He is the author of many books, including, most recently, “The Case Against Israel’s Enemies.”

Anti-kezaliman suggests that some non-Muslims in Malaysia express their sympathy to Israel because of their prejudice against Muslims and the success of Zionist propaganda.

His choices of the words ‘prejudice’ and ‘propaganda’ presuppose that any anti-Hamas and pro-Israel view must be wrong or problematic. But that’s precisely the point in contention. There is also an implicit suggestion that non-Muslims are gullible and incapable of making rational discernment when it comes to this issue. On the contrary, I think non-Muslim Malaysians are in a better position to be more level-headed on this issue given that they are neither Jews nor Muslims.

I don’t think labelling someone’s view as the result of prejudice and propaganda advances the discussion at all. If such labelling shows any merit of any view, Anti-kezaliman has to take seriously those who contend that any pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli view is a result of anti-semitic prejudice and the success of Islamist propaganda.

I don’t think such labelling is helpful at all. Deal directly with the merits of the view. If you disagree, point out the problems of the arguments. When we disagree with Farish Noor, we don’t respond by shouting ‘anti-semitic prejudice’ or ‘Islamist propaganda’, if we’re interested in rational discussion. We point out the problems in his arguments, his inconsistent dismissal of historical continuity, his bad analogy etc. If you disagree with Alan’s view, deal with his arguments.

OrangRojak,

Analogies are never meant to be identical to their analogues. The question is, whether the disanalogies are relevant to the analogy being made.

As I said in my previous citation of Alan’s article, my action of citing the article should not be seen as my endorsement of his view and arguments. My intention is merely to provide both sides of the story.

My own views are expressed in my comments.

anti-kezaliman says:
‘Lee Wang Yen,

The Jews were not chased away by Arabs. Palestine had been occupied by lotsa powerful nations prior to 1948.’

In a particular period in the Middle Ages, the Islamic rulers were very harsh towards dhimmis. Many Jews and Christians fled because they were faced with the choice of either conversion or death.

oops… ‘…that THEY could win…’

[ deleted ]

To balance anti-Kezaliman one-sided story,
Itamar Levin, Locked Doors: The Seizure of Jewish Properties in Arab Countries (Princeton University Press), xv:

‘…An opinion, handed down recently in a lawsuit currently pending in the New York courts regarding the property of an Egyptian-Jewish family, stated unequivocally that the treatment of Jews in that country was categorized as persecution on racial and religious grounds, and thus, forbidden by international law. In Syria and Iraq – two other countries this book will deal with at length – the measures taken to confiscate property were far more extreme, leaving no doubt as to their legality. 1n 1987, former US Supreme Court justice Arthur Goldberg reached a similar conclusion in an opinion in which he wrote that the measures taken regarding Jewish property in Arab countries were, without exception, violating international law. Another possible claim is that actions taken by the Arab countries against the Jews in general, and their property in particular, were nothing more than a means of taking compensation for Israel’s acts against the Palestinians, specifically confiscation of Palestinian property and transfer of ownership to the State of Israel. But historical fact refutes this claim for the simple reason that the Arab states threatened to expel the Jews well before a single Arab refugee ever left Palestine. Moreover, the Palestinian refugee problem was created mainly by circumstances surrounding Israel’s wars; Israel’s Jewish leaders generally requested that Arab citizens remain in their homes. By contrast, the Jews in Arab lands were forced to emigrate due to systematic persecution, and in some cases they were simply expelled from the lands of their birth. And so, we are left with no legal, moral, or historical justification, only hatred, on one hand, and the desire for political or material gain on the other. These are the only reasons the Arab countries had for persecuting their Jews, expelling them, and stealing all that they owned.’

Thanks, Jeffrey, for your insightful piece!
I don’t think that anyone here has appealed to the Abrahamic covenant to address the core issue discussed here. As I clarified earlier, the reference to the covenant was meant to support Justitia’s claim that Undergrad2 has made an inaccurate claim about the timing of the promise of land. Of course, one may not believe in the promise of land given by God, for one many not even believe that there is a God. The issue is not about whether there is such a promise or if such a promise is really from God, or if there is a god. The issue is that – if there God exists and if such a promise is really from God, is Undergrad2 correct in claiming that that promise was suddenly given in a certain period in history rather than an earlier period as claimed by Justitia? The best source to refer to in an attempt to clarify the TIMING of the alleged promise of land is the religious text that describes the reception of the promise.

It doesn’t follow that the text is the best source to appeal to if one argues about the TRUTH and VALIDITY (in the legal sense) of the alleged promise. If someone thinks that the truth and validity of the alleged promise cannot be established by merely citing a religious text, he will also rationally conclude that one cannot rationally address the question of who are the legitimate owners of that land by citing the religious text.

I don’t think we should appeal to religious text or theology to address the question of who have the legitimate right to the land here.

Let’s try not to conflate issues.

On the issue of whether one side has condemned violence against the other side, I claim that Anti-Kezaliman and I share roughly the same degree of partiality/impartiality, since he has cited some Jews who condemn violence against Arabs while I have cited some Muslims who condemn violence against Jews.

Now, on the issue of whether one side has committed atrocities on the other side, can I be rightly accused of being biased or at least less impartial than anti-Kezaliman?

Anti-Kezaliman may think so, because I have cited two authors with Jew-like names (Cohen and Ithamar), which he claims to be proponents of Zionism (since he accuses me of quoting Zionist sources).

First of all, whether they are Israeli Jews or Jews with direct connection to Israel and whether they are Zionist Jews are what Anti-Kezaliman has yet to find out.

Barring further information and evidence indicating their connection to Zionism, all we can say is that I have cited some authors that are likely te be Jews (given their names) who provide accounts of Arab atrocities on Jews. Is this action of mine biased? Well, it may be, since they are accounts given by someones who probably have connections with the alleged victims (by alleged victims I mean Jews, not Zionists). But the more relevant question is: is it less impartial than Anti-Kezaliman?

Well, if Anti-Kezaliman can cite some non-Muslim Chinese and Indian historians who deny the atrocities of Muslim Arabs on Jews, then I’ll have to concede that I’m less impartial than Anti-Kezaliman in presenting my side of the story, if I can’t subsequently cite a non-Jewish historian to counter that denial.

opps… ‘if [strike out THERE] God exists…’

Dismissing everything the other side says as propaganda and promoting every propaganda or propaganda-sounding talk produced by your side as ‘truth’ does not advance rational discussion. Muslim Malaysians often talk about Zionist Propaganda. What about anti-semitic propaganda, including the following home-made version?

adl.org/PresRele/ASaw_14/4276_13.
ADL Calls on Malaysian Government to Denounce Anti-Semitism

‘New York, N.Y., June 24, 2003 … Calling the distribution of Henry Ford’s anti-Semitic book The International Jew at an official party event for the Malaysian Prime Minister, “outrageous,” the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) urged the government of Malaysia to “take immediate steps to demonstrate that anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic literature are not to be tolerated.”

The book, which contains the anti-Semitic forgery Protocols of the Elders of Zion, portrays Jews as monolithic, malicious schemers conspiring to take over the world. The official event was marked by the final speech of Prime Minister Mahatir Mohamad as party president.

“The government of Malaysia needs to take immediate steps to demonstrate that anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic literature are not to be tolerated,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. “This outrageous incident which occurred at an official function of the ruling party implies official approval of the distribution and the book’s contents.” The League expressed its concern in a letter to Dato Sheikh Abdul Khalid Ghazzali, Malaysian Ambassador to the United States.

Malaysia’s leadership in the past has propagated anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. Previous statements by Prime Minister Mahatir include a comment in 1988 that the Western media is controlled by Jews and an accusation that Jewish-owned foreign publications are attempting to destabilize Malaysia. More recently in 1997, the Prime Minister stated that “Jews are not happy to see Moslem’s progress.” ‘

No, my citations were merely responses to your citations which show that Jews condemn violence against Arabs. If those citations are red-herring, they are merely responses to your initial red-herrings.

Now, you claim that didn’t just see the connection with Zionism by names. You say you googled the names. Can you please show us the evidence that indicates that Mark Cohen, a professor at Princeton University, and Ithamar Levin have connections with Zionism?

Please also give us a definition of Zionism. Don’t simply say that anyone expressing any view that is sympathetic to Jews is Zionist. Likewise, I don’t label anyone who condemns Israel’s attack on Hamas as ‘Al-Qaedaist’.

Have you found any evidence that links Cohen and Ithamar to Zionism from your google search?

Your accusation of ‘how lame’ is very lame without producing such evidence.

No one has any right to ask anyone to retract a claim unless one can show that someone has deliberately made a false claim. In rational discussion, we don’t threaten to take action or to ask someone to take action when you don’t agree with what someone says, unless you have good reason to think that your discussant has deliberately made a false claim.
Now, I don’t agree with some of the historical or scientific claims made by my colleagues. But I don’t jump to the conclusion that my beliefs in these issues must be absolutely correct and thus to the second conclusion that my colleagues must be deliberately making false claims. They could just be misled by their evidence or they could just be using bad arguments in arriving at their conclusions. Even if you want to jump to the first conclusion, there is no good reason to jump to the second conclusion. Perhaps there is a good reason: someone who has the propensity of jumping to the first conclusion is probably irrational, and an irrational person is likely to jump to the second conclusion.
Now, let’s apply all these to our case in hand. If you can show that my claim that Prophet Mohammad expelled and killed Jews in Medina is a deliberate false claim, then you’re well justified to take an action or to urge someone to take an action.
The claim that Prophet Mohammad expelled and killed Jews can be backed up by academic and non-academic, and Jewish and non-Jewish sources (see, eg, Cohen, Under Crescent…163; theReligionOfPeace). Of course, I’m well aware that this is a contentious claim in the sense that others have challenged this claim by questioning the authenticity and/or interpretation of the evidence cited by those who affirm this claim. If you read the literature on this issue, you’ll find that those who affirm this claim have also challenged those who challenge this claim by questioning the authenticity and/or interpretation of their evidence. Claims and counter-claims, evidence and counter-evidence – these are the realities of rational discussion and academic research.
When there are disputes in a historical or scientific claim in the sense that the available evidence does not exclusively or overwhelmingly support one side of the dispute, it doesn’t help advance rational discussion to threaten one side to retract a claim.
Also, if one hopes to promote a particular religion, issuing threats to take action or to urge someone to take action doesn’t help at all. Unbelievers need to see the attractiveness of that religion, including its reasonableness. If followers of the religion constantly shut down rational discussion by refusing to engage with arguments and evidence and by issuing threats to take action, it’s very hard to win over unbelievers.

oops ‘…you claim that YOU didn’t…’

oops… ‘ the COMPARISON…’
Sorry!

OrangRojak, I appreciate your sense of humour.

Undergrad2 criticises me for inappropriately taking the rational and logical approach characteristic of analytic philosophy to address the issue discussed here.

Now, what’s the issue discussed here? The specific issue of Israeli-Palestinian war that raises general questions of war, peace, justice, just-war, etc. All these are topics of ethics, which is a branch of philosophy.

Thus, the philosophical approach is not only appropriate, but essential. Of course, this is not the only dimension of the issue. There are other non-philosophical dimensions.

Francis Peters (Professor of Middle Eastern Studies History and Religion at New York University until 2008), Islam (Princeton University Press), 78-9:
‘Indeed, Muhammad received a special revelation – it is not recorded in the Quran, but only as a story in the Life – commanding him to attack the Qurayza. He did, and after nearly a month of determined resistance, they saw the end was near. The Life tells another oddly heroic story about the Jews – already it had portrayed the Nadir marching off into exile with flags flying and heads held high. In this instance, the Qurayza rejected the suggestion that they convert to save themselves and likewise refused to attack the Muslims because it was the Sabbath. Finally, they appealed to their Arab patrons of the Aws. Once again, the response was unenthusiastic: no one was willing to cross Muhammad at this stage. Muhammad was conciliatory only to the extent that he allowed one of the Aws to determine their sentence. His judgment was that the males of the Qurayza deserved death and that the women and children should be sold into slavery. It was done: between six hundred and eight hundred males of the Qurayza were publicly beheaded in the main market of Medina, and, if we are to credit the Life, Muhammad himself was the chief executioner. The tribe’s real property was again divided among the Muslims. That was the end of the Jews of Medina, a not inconsiderable part of the population, we can guess, though they had recently been reduced to clientage to the paramount Arab tribes of Aws and Khazraj. There is some evidence that they were the most literate Medinese and in many cases the craftsmen of the settlement. The Muslim newcomers appropriated the Jews’ property – their lands and inventories – but not their skills. Yet they had little need for the latter; an even more profitable windfall had come upon them.’

As a layman in history, I’m not qualified to provide an authoritative assessment as to which side of the story is true.

However, as a layman in history, I have the right, as any other layman in history on any issue, to state my view according to the various resources (which are no doubt limited by the standards of professional historians) that I have come across. The right way to respond to this if you do not agree is to present counter evidence or counter arguments regarding the correct interpretation of the evidence rather than issuing threats.

Michael Lecker (1995), ‘Judaism Among Kinda and the Ridda of Kinda’ Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 115, No. 4, pp. 635-650.

The massacre of Jews in Yemen:
‘Islamic sources indicate that on the even of Islam, the Jews were the largest religious community in the Yemen. Yaqubi says that all the inhabitants of the Yemen were Jewish, while Ibn Hazm says that all the Himyarites and many Kindites were Jews. Our attention is focused on Kinda, who inhabited both the Yemen and Hadramawt…The sources point to an analogy between the massacre of Kinda, at the end of their rebellion shortly after the Prophet Muhammad’s death, and the massacre of the Jewish Banu Qurayza in Medina several years earlier’ (p635).

‘The episode which concluded the ridda of Kinda was the siege of Nujayr and the massacre of the besieged. Hamdani lists al-Nujayr among the fortresses of Hadramawt and says that it belonged to the Banu Madikarib of Kinda. This is presumably a reference to the offspring of Ashath’s grandfather, Madikarib b. Muawiya b. Jabala. Following the siege, hundreds of men were massacred, women and children were enslaved. The sources significantly point to an analogy between this massacre and the well-known massacre of the Jewish Banu Qurayza several years earlier.’ (p643)

Francis E. Peters, Muhammad and the Origins of Islam, p224:

‘ “…Then the Banu Qurayza surrendered themselves and the Messenger confined them in the compound of Bint al-Harith, a woman of the Banu al-Najjar. Then the Messenger went out to the market of Medina – which is still the market today – and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of God Hyayy ibn Aktab and Ka‘b ibn Asas their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the Apostle, they asked Ka‘b what he thought would be done to them. He replied, ‘Will you never understand? Don’t you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away never return? By God, it is death!” This went on until the Messenger made an end to them…”(Ibn Ishaq 1955, p. 464). The penalty was a harsh one, and perhaps even somewhat surprising in the light of Muhammad’s earlier treatment of the Jews of Medina, but the later Muslim jurists took their cue from Sura 8 of the Quran, which they took to refer to this case: “The worst of beasts in the sight of God are those who reject Him: they will not believe. They are those with whom you made a pact, then they break their compact every time and they fear not God. So if you come up against them in war, drive off through them their followers, that they may remember. And if you fear treachery from any group, dissolve it [that is, the pact] with them equally, for God does not love the treacherous.” (Quran 8:55-58).

oops… ‘ Islamic sources indicate that on the EVE of Islam…’