Anti-Semitism amongst Muslims – a personal view


By Mohammed Amin f...
August 11, 2010
Share

I was saddened and disgusted to read in the Daily Telegraph newspaper on 10 July 2010 that a Muslim immigrant to Canada has become the first person in Canada charged with promoting the genocide of Jews.

While I have no knowledge of whether the person is guilty of the offenses alleged, I have no doubt that the statements he is alleged to have written have no place in Islam, and if written by a Muslim can only bring shame upon him.

What does “anti-Semitism” mean?

Linguists classify languages into groups, based on similarities in vocabulary and grammatical structure and call both Arabic and Hebrew Semitic languages. Similarly, even before modern genetics provided a scientific way of studying human descent, Arabs and Jews have been referred to as Semitic peoples.

Accordingly, people sometimes argue that anti-Semitism is not a well defined term, querying whether it applies to hatred of Arabs as well as Jews. Others use a similar play on words to contend that Arabs by definition cannot be anti-Semites.

However, the word “anti-Semitism” has a precise meaning in English. Whichever English language dictionary you choose, you will find a definition similar to that in Wordnet 3.0 from Princeton Universitythe intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people." One may argue that it is illogical to restrict the term anti-Semitism to Jews, but the English language does not claim to be logical. In the rest of this article, this standard usage is applied.

Historical comparison of the Christian and Muslim treatment of Jews

Christian Europe has a terrible record of anti-Semitism over its 2,000 year history. Notable stains include the expulsion of the Jews from England, the forced conversion, expulsion or killing of Jews in Spain, massive pogroms in Russia and within our lifetimes the Holocaust.

Unlike Europe, in the Muslim world Jews and Christians had a clearly defined place in society. They were categorised as “dhimmi” (protected people) with clearly defined legal rights and obligations. For example, they were exempt from military service and from payment of Zakah (the compulsory charitable tax levied upon Muslims) but instead were liable to pay a different tax called jizyah payable by non-Muslim citizens.

As dhimmi, they were able to practice their trades, observe their religion and build places of worship. They were governed by their own personal law arbitrated by Jewish religious courts, the Beth Din, whose judgement would be enforced by the state. Much of the Talmud was written by Jews living in the Muslim world. It was also the Muslim world which offered sanctuary to Jewish refugees from England and Spain after the expulsions. Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (commonly known as Maimonides) taught at Al-Qarawiyin in Fez, Morocco, the oldest university in the world. Jews could, and did, rise in society as high as the position of “wazir” (prime minister) even though they could never be the emir or caliph (king).

Zionism and reactions to it

Sadly, in the 20th-century Zionism and its impact on the Middle East have poisoned relations between Muslims and Jews. After Britain captured Palestine from Ottoman Turkey, conflicts gradually developed between the inhabitants of Palestine and the incomers seeking to create a Jewish state in their midst, culminating in the war of 1948. Since being expelled from their homes, Palestinian Arabs have sought to recover their land. Initially this was seen as a national territorial struggle, not a religious conflict. That is evidenced by the participation in the struggle of Palestinian Christians such as George Habash alongside Muslims, as well as the names of the Palestinian movements such as the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine or Fatah which is an Arabic acronym for Palestinian Liberation Movement.

In the recent past, the nature of the Palestinian resistance has changed, as it has become increasingly dominated by factions inspired by religion. This is shown by the names of organisations such as Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa (the name of a mosque on the Temple Mount) Martyrs Brigade and Hamas (which is an Arabic acronym for Islamic Resistance Movement). The increased religious identification has led some of these movements to risk drifting from anti-Zionism into anti-Semitism.

Perhaps the clearest example of the drift into anti-Semitism is found in the Hamas charter which is available at the following web address http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm. Article 22 repeats the myth of the world Jewish conspiracy. Recoiling in horror from the slanders in Article 22 is the correct reaction for both Muslims and non-Muslims. However when reading the charter, it is sobering to reflect on how Palestinians’ experience of 60 years of seeing America, the world's most powerful country, regularly subordinate its national interest to its support for Israel might cause them to believe in the world Jewish conspiracy as summarised in article 22.

Outside Palestine, Muslims have naturally sympathised with their co-religionists and are almost universally anti-Zionist. Zionists often argue that anti-Zionism is inherently anti-Semitic; the invalidity of this contention is most easily demonstrated by the fact that many Jews have opposed Zionism and continue to do so. In my opinion, most anti-Zionist Muslims have no difficulty avoiding anti-Semitism.

Real Anti-Semitism amongst Muslims

Sadly however I find real anti-Semitism amongst some Muslims just as I find it amongst some Christians. Regardless of the factors that caused them to become antisemitic, they usually justify their views by selective reference to the Quran and to Hadith (narrations of the sayings and actions of the Prophet, peace be upon him.)

For example, the text in Quran 5.51 (Muhammad Asad “The Message of the Quran”)O you who have attained to faith! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies of one another ...is often used to criticise cross-religious friendships.

However Muhammad Asad’s footnote to this verse goes on to explain “As regards the meaning of the "alliance" referred to here, see 3:28, and more particularly 4:139 and the corresponding note, which explains the reference to a believer's loss of his moral identity if he imitates the way of life of, or - in Quranic terminology - "allies himself" with, non-Muslims. However, as has been made abundantly clear in 60:7-9 (and implied in verse 57 of this surah), this prohibition of a "moral alliance" with non-Muslims does not constitute an injunction against normal, friendly relations with such of them as are well-disposed towards Muslims. It should be borne in mind that the term ‘wall’ has several shades of meaning: "ally", "friend", "helper", "protector", etc. The choice of the particular term - and sometimes a combination of two terms - is always dependent on the context.”

Conversely, Muslim anti-Semites choose to ignore verses such as Quran 2.62 (Muhammad Asad “The Message of the Quran”):

“VERILY, those who have attained to faith [in this divine writ], as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Christians, and the Sabians - all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds - shall have their reward with their Sustainer; and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve.”

Similarly Muslim anti-Semites ignore Quran 5.5 (Muhammad Asad “The Message of the Quran”), which is referring not to converts but to Jewish and Christian women who retain their religions:

“Today, all the good things of life have been made lawful to you. And the food of those who have been vouchsafed revelation aforetime is lawful to you, and your food is lawful to them. And [lawful to you are], in wedlock, women from among those who believe [in this divine writ], and, in wedlock, women from among those who have been vouchsafed revelation before your time -provided that you give them their dowers, taking them in honest wedlock, not in fornication, nor as secret love-companions. But as for him who rejects belief [in God] - in vain will be all his works: for in the life to come he shall be among the lost.”

Similarly, while there were conflicts between Muslims and some of the Jews in the early years in Medina, the Prophet (peace be upon him) treated Jews with the same respect that he treated other human beings. A simple example is the Hadith in Bukhari Volume 2, Book 23, Number 398:

A funeral procession passed in front of us and the Prophet stood up and we too stood up. We said, 'O Allah's Apostle! This is the funeral procession of a Jew." He said, "Whenever you see a funeral procession, you should stand up."

Regardless of the pain they feel at the suffering of the Palestinian people, any Muslims inclined towards anti-Semitism need to remember that it has no place within Islam. They need to explore what the Quran actually teaches and relearn their 1,300 year history of religious tolerance.

Mohammed Amin

COMMENTS

Jonathan Hoffman

12 August, 2010 - 00:03

Rate this:

1 point

An intelligent piece flawed by one paragraph:

Zionists often argue that anti-Zionism is inherently anti-Semitic; the invalidity of this contention is most easily demonstrated by the fact that many Jews have opposed Zionism and continue to do so.

1. Only a tiny minority of Jews oppose Zionism. See the recent JPR Survey.

2. They do not 'prove' that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, any more than Dr Harold Shipman 'proved' that all GPs murder elderly patients.

3. To deny the Jews a homeland - the essence of Zionism - is indeed antisemitic, see the EUMC Definition of Antisemitism. And there are many Muslim States, so why would a Muslim seek to deny one state to Jews?

The true test of a 'moderate Muslim' (hat tip, Melanie Phillips) is one who accepts Israel's right to exist as a State grounded in Judaism and who accepts Israel's right to defend itself from thos who would destroy it.

I am sad to say that few Muslims accept this. Do you?


bataween

12 August, 2010 - 06:32

Rate this:

3 points

I'm sorry to say that there are lots of things wrong with this piece.
It is a myth that things were worse in Christian Europe than in the Muslim world. As dhimmi the Jews (and Chrstians) had very few legal rights in relation to Muslims. Christians still can't build houses of worship freely, or even repair them without permission. Dhimmis were inferior to Muslims and only allowed to survive as Jews because they were useful - 'protected' only in so far as they paid the jizya - protection money. They were subject to forced conversions in Iran, Yemen and Morocco and confined to ghettos. A Jew's fate depended very much on the ruler of the day and varied from place to place.
You omit to mention that Maimonides only ended up in Fez because he was forced to flee Muslim fundamentalists in his native Spain.
It is true that the Ottomans welcomed the Jews fleeing the Spanish inquisition, but lots of Jews were also given refuge in Europe (Holland, England, Hamburg, Polamd).
It is not true that 20th century Zionism and its impact poisoned relations between Jews and Muslims. In 1919 the Emir Feisal signed an agreement with Weizmann accepting the idea of a Jewish state; the political class in Egypt, for instance, was at first favourably disposed towards Zionism. It was only because the forces of fundamentalism - pan-Arabism and Islamism - were given free rein, with the encouragement of the British - that the Arab world became anti-Zionist.
As Jonathan Hoffman points out very few Muslims today accept the idea of a Jewish homeland - Zionism. Very few Jews oppose Zionism. So we have an impasse. One side has to change, and with only one Jewish state in existence and 56 Muslim states, I don't see why it has to be Israel.


Jonathan Hoffman

12 August, 2010 - 06:56

Rate this:

2 points

Bataween

Good comments. I was too kind about this piece.


telegramsam

12 August, 2010 - 08:15

Rate this:

-2 points

Jonathan even JPR accepts that its methodology was open to skewing so its survey is pointless. Also eumc doesn't exist any more and the definition lacks any authority. Antisemitism is best summed up as hating Jews qua Jews.


Joshua18

12 August, 2010 - 09:55

Rate this:

0 points

bataween writes:

"It is a myth that things were worse in Christian Europe than in the Muslim world."

It is not a myth. In terms of pogroms, mass-murder and genocide things were far worse in Christian Europe. However, just because things were bloody awful in Europe doesn't mean that they weren't also dire in the Muslim world albeit rather less so.

I think that the problem is that we have been trained to view European society as the epitome of 'civilisation'. Good little diaspora Jews that we are we of course have mostly fallen for this guff. The Jewish experience, most particularly during World War II, should have taught us something very different.


Joshua18

12 August, 2010 - 10:00

Rate this:

2 points

Jonathan Hoffman writes:

"To deny the Jews a homeland - the essence of Zionism - is indeed antisemitic"

That is true if only because it holds Jews to a different standard to the rest of humanity. On the other hand, the hatred of Israel in Europe is unquestionably motivated by the hatred of Jews whereas I believe a similar hatred in the Muslim world has for the most part political origins.


Joshua18

12 August, 2010 - 10:07

Rate this:

1 point

"Jonathan even JPR accepts that its methodology was open to skewing so its survey is pointless."

As an anti-Zionist naturally you'd like us to believe that crap.

From my own perspective I have more interest in the welfare of stray dogs in India that that of anti-Zionist Jews. They are the ultimate traitors, hateful beyond measure.


Ben Abuyah

12 August, 2010 - 10:33

Rate this:

-1 points

Joshua18, have you never heard of kol yisrael arevim zeh l'zeh (all of Israel are responsible for each other)? Or of the idea that the Second Temple was destroyed because of sinat chinam (groundless hatred)?

I guess not - far too Jewish for someone like you who is only Jewish when it comes to defending Zionism.


raycook

12 August, 2010 - 10:40

Rate this:

2 points

I think it is important that we should welcome Mohammed Amin's contribution.

Although many on these blogs would not agree with everything in this article or the details, I find it refreshing that Mr Amin is motivated to write here.

I am also pleased to see another Mancunian (although this my adoptive city).

It is certainly a lot more balanced and respectful than many anti-Zionist bloggers on this site.

I am particularly happy to see Mohammed Amin's acceptance of anti-Semitism as it was always intended as many Muslims, not only extremists, seek to protect themselves from the accusation of being anti-Semitic by spurious redefinitions.

Although Mohammed Amin mentions Hamas's charter, he misses out the daily obscene anti-Semitic broadcasts and educational brainwashing which spew out from Gaza. And the PA is also tainted by anti-Semitism in its broadcasts and schools. This is not to mention the availability and credence given to anti-Semitic literature (such as the Protocols) in most Arab and other Muslim countries.

I'd also take issue with the statement 'Much of the Talmud was written by Jews living in the Muslim world.' This is not true as the Talmud predates Islam having been largely completed by 500CE


happygoldfish

12 August, 2010 - 11:07

Rate this:

1 point

hi mohammed!

i see that you are an honorary officer of the manchester muslim jewish forum, and that your blog was originally on another site, perhaps addressed to a primarily muslim readership?

i think bataween is wrong to concentrate on the precise nature of dhimmi status …

that is now of purely historical interest, except for the point that you do make, that "poisoned relations between Muslims and Jews" is a very recent and non-fundamental development

i take it you seek suggestions as to how a muslim-directed article such as this might be tweaked to be even more helpful?

my personal suggestion would be to discourage use of the words "zionism" and "zionists" …

zionism historically was support for the establishment of a jewish home in the holy land

since that home was established , zionism doesn't really exist any longer (though many jews still use the word, but only to mean opposition to "anti-zionism", ie opposition to the elimination of israel)

most non-jews use "zionism" to denote some undefined philosophy or plot

(as a matter of interest, what do you think the muslims you hear using "zionism" mean by it?)

why do muslims (and others) have a special word for jews who support israel (or worse) when they don't have one for turks who support turkey, welshmen who support wales, etc??

isn't the use of a special word itself racism?

(and also, isn't any word which distinguishes between jews and non-jews with the same opinion … because its definition begins "jews who …" … automatically racist?)

the word "zionism" enables the user to imply some evil philosophy, without having to specify what it is … all his listeners agree that zionism is bad, and probably also agree that most english jews are zionists

does the word "zionism" serve any purpose other than to criticise jews for some unspecified opinion that most jews probably don't hold?


mattpryor

12 August, 2010 - 11:54

Rate this:

1 point

Dear Mr Amin,

Your piece is conciliatory in tone and intelligently thought out, and I think it's fantastic that you've posted here. I should mention right away that I'm not Jewish, if that makes my opinions any less valid, however I'll share them with you anyway!

With all due respect your summary of recent(ish) history is not a balanced or objective one, and this clash of narratives seems to be the root of much of the debate about the conflict.

After Britain captured Palestine from Ottoman Turkey, conflicts gradually developed between the inhabitants of Palestine and the incomers seeking to create a Jewish state in their midst, culminating in the war of 1948.

I am sorry to be blunt but this is a vague and dishonest statement. Firstly, Britain did not "capture Palestine" - Britain was charged with administering Palestine by the League of Nations. Sadly it was a task that we were not equal to - particularly after our economy and armed forces were bled dry after two world wars. For me this is a cause of national shame and it is compounded by our government's failure to speak up for Israel internationally.

Secondly, to say that "conflicts gradually developed...culminating in the war of 1948" completely whitewashes Arab aggression and rejectionism. I appreciate that you are trying to find a middle ground between two very different narratives (very BBC!) but that is not an honest position when those narratives are mutually exclusive. There was no difference - none - between the creation of modern Israel and the creation of modern Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, etc, other than the fact that Israel was not governed by Arabs. All of these countries were "created", and Israel stands out as the only nation that was (and is) governed by popular consent instead of by authoritarian rule (and I include the Palestinian territories in that assessment).

While there are plenty of examples of countries that were founded by forcibly removing or subduing the existing population - Australia, the Americas, much of Africa, for example - Israel is not one. There are also plenty of nation states that have solved their internal sectarian conflicts with the use of massive, inhumane force - Sri Lanka and Yemen being two such recent examples - and again Israel is not one of them.

I am not trying to diminish the injustice that has been done to many Palestinian Arabs as a result of this tragic conflict, but it seems to me that Israel is very wrongly cast as the villain in this conflict when the reality is far more complex and sad.

I think a large part of the problem is an unwillingness from many people to apply the same empathy and humanity to Israelis as they do to others, which I can only attribute to Jew hatred.


Jonathan Hoffman

12 August, 2010 - 14:00

Rate this:

-2 points

Telegram: "even JPR accepts that its methodology was open to skewing so its survey is pointless."

Eh? Evidence?

"Also eumc doesn't exist any more and the definition lacks any authority."

Rubbish. The EUMC has been renamed the FRA but so what? The Definition was agreed by representatives of all EU governments and isa ccepted by the US State Dept, UK NUS, UK Parliament Antisemitism Committee, and many other official organisations.


telegramsam

12 August, 2010 - 14:16

Rate this:

1 point

Jonathan read the last page of the Joe report. Also, someone called Jonathan Hoffman on this here blog said the survey was self selecting and therefore worthless. He also questioned why the pears people were wasting so much money on it. Whatever happened to that Jonathan Hoffman?


telegramsam

12 August, 2010 - 14:19

Rate this:

0 points

I hate spellcheckers.


telegramsam

12 August, 2010 - 14:23

Rate this:

0 points

Well that kept you busy and out of mischief for a few hours. Come and visit us in Camden. We promise not to laugh.


ibrows

12 August, 2010 - 16:06

Rate this:

0 points

Jonathan

you seem to state that to be Anti-Zionism, is by definition 'anti-semitic'. Using this logic, any Jews that oppose Zionism are anti-semitic, is that what your saying.

Plus there are far more Jews that oppose Zionism and its territorial expansions into Palestinian territory that you actually claim. Loads of people do not for a second deny Jews as homeland, but are still anti-Zionism. Israel and Zionism are totally separate things, despite your efforts to forge them together as 'normalise' your Zionist views.


ibrows

12 August, 2010 - 16:27

Rate this:

0 points

matt hilarious post

You claim, the Palestinian territories are 'governed by popular consent', do you think the Palestinians consented to Israel occupying their land, restricting their movements and causing the economy to collapse due to import and export restriction (in the case of Gaza)? Do you also think the Palestinians consented to being subject to military laws in the occupied territories, which Jews are not subject to?

secondly, you claims: 'While there are plenty of examples of countries that were founded by forcibly removing or subduing the existing population - Australia, the Americas, much of Africa, for example - Israel is not one'.

So 700,000 Palestinians were not expelled from their homes during the Nakba of 1948, even historians like Benny Morris in 'Birth of the Palestinian refugee problem' concede that Israel prevented these Palestinians from returning and razed their homes and took over the land. Plus the forced removal of Palestinians continues weekly to this day, both in Israel itself that demolishes the 'unrecognised villages' of the Bedouin, and house demolitions in the West Bank and East Jerusalem areas like Sheikh Jarrah


ibrows

12 August, 2010 - 16:59

Rate this:

0 points

happygoldfish

so you think Zionists are 'racist' too i guess. As they use 'a special word' to define themselves.

Anti-zionism does not as you claim mean someone is 'seeking the elimination of Israel' this is a totally fabricated interpretation to prevent any criticism of Zionist policies and Israeli state policies. Zionism is a political ideology. Someone can recognise and accept the state of Israel, yet be anti-Zionism, many Jews occupy this position


happygoldfish

12 August, 2010 - 17:47

Rate this:

0 points

ibrows, no, i think people who call themselves zionists also call non-jews such as david cameron and gordon brown (and probably most british people) zionists, since they mean opposition to "anti-zionism", ie opposition to the elimination of israel

happygoldfish: the word "zionism" enables the user to imply some evil philosophy, without having to specify what it is … all his listeners agree that zionism is bad, and probably also agree that most english jews are zionists

ibrows: Zionism is a political ideology.

oh, that's so specific!

ibrows, what is it?

ibrows

12 August, 2010 - 17:56

Rate this:

0 points

So you define Zionists as those who oppose 'anti-Zionism', well that is very specific, how does that definition work?

its misleading too, just as someone recognises Israel does not mean they support Zionist political ideology, these are separate things


Jonathan Hoffman

12 August, 2010 - 18:01

Rate this:

1 point

Of course I had reservations about the JPR methodology but if you care to read the report, they use proven statistical techniques to correct the known bias from self-selection. And the 'last page' simply sets out the normal health warnings of these kinds of surveys. yo are clearly a novitiate in this area. I am not.

Did you all hear about the floods in Northern India? Young Israeli tourists who could have been evacuated by air back to Israel have opted to stay there and help the devastated people. Those - most of whom have done their army service - are volunteering in hospitals and doing anything they can to help.

When asked. one of the young men said "Why would we leave? They need all the help they can get AND WE WERE brought up to help others."

Those are the answers to those here who have only an accusing finger to point.


telegramsam

12 August, 2010 - 19:00

Rate this:

0 points

Jonathan wheN it comes to whataboutery as a dodge you be the metal guru, the jeepster and the groover all rolled into one. Kol hakavod


amber

12 August, 2010 - 19:03

Rate this:

0 points

ibrows, there are indeed antisemitic Jews.


telegramsam

12 August, 2010 - 19:35

Rate this:

0 points

Jonathan I mentioned Balfour house to send you on a wild goose chase. I then mentioned Camden. Now which Zionist org works out of Camden? We are having a huge laugh waiting in anticipation of Harvey Rose taking over. At least then the zf's Herut tendency will reduced to its proper size.


happygoldfish

12 August, 2010 - 19:57

Rate this:

0 points

ibrows, can't you read? the answer is the seven words following what you quoted from

ibrows: So you define Zionists as those who oppose 'anti-Zionism', well that is very specific, how does that definition work?

happygoldfish: … they mean opposition to "anti-zionism", ie opposition to the elimination of israel

ibrows, i have been specific , but you deliberately still haven't

so i repeat …

happygoldfish: the word "zionism" enables the user to imply some evil philosophy, without having to specify what it is … all his listeners agree that zionism is bad, and probably also agree that most english jews are zionists

ibrows: Zionism is a political ideology.

oh, that's so specific!

ibrows, what is it?

ibrows

12 August, 2010 - 20:45

Rate this:

0 points

Your hilarious, you define something, as opposite to 'Anti- that of that thing'.

I will repeat again 'anti-Zionism', does not mean 'calling for the elimination of Israel'. An individual like myself can be 'anti-Zionism' meaning against the political movement of Zionism, whilst still recognising and accepting the state of Israel. What many anti-Zionists oppose is the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the mistaken belief that Israel has God given rights to all Palestinian land, and that the political occupation and illegal settlement can be justified on the basis of the bible. I can oppose all these statements, but still accept the state of Israel within its legal pre-1967 borders.


happygoldfish

12 August, 2010 - 21:25

Rate this:

1 point

ibrows, i'm perfectly consistent … anti-zionism is wanting the elimination of israel, and zionism is opposition to that (ie support for the continued existence of israel)

you still haven't said what you mean by "zionism"

i suppose we can get a clue from what you think other anti-zionists opppose …

ibrows: What many anti-Zionists oppose is …

so let's look at that for the time being …

ibrows: … the Israeli occupation of Palestine,

if by "Palestine" you include the land of israel, then that is wanting the elimination of israel; if you mean only the west bank and gaza strip, then i think most jews agree with that, that the occupation should end as soon as peace can be assured  

ibrows: … the mistaken belief that Israel has God given rights to all Palestinian land, and that the political occupation and illegal settlement can be justified on the basis of the bible.

again, most jews (though i agree not all) don't rely on god or the bible to justify the existence of israel, or even the settlements … they rely on legal right and post-1947 history

anyway, are you now saying that you define zionists as people who rely on god or the bible to judge what israel does?

if so, of course i agree that you can be anti-zionist without wanting to eliminate israel …

but, on that definition, most british jews and israeli jews are not zionists

does your use of the word "zionism" serve any purpose other than to criticise jews for this, now specified as bible-based, view that most jews don't hold?

amber

12 August, 2010 - 21:43

Rate this:

0 points

ibrows, it is an oxymoron to be an anti-Zionist who believes in Israel as the Jewish state.


Jonathan Hoffman

12 August, 2010 - 22:37

Rate this:

-2 points

TerribleSam

There are those giants who do - in their own name - and those pygmies who snipe at them - anonymously.

I am in the former category. You are in the latter.

Know your place.


Jonathan Hoffman

12 August, 2010 - 22:38

Rate this:

-1 points

TerribleSam

Were you Tsarfarty - who got banned?


happygoldfish

13 August, 2010 - 03:17

Rate this:

2 points

o puny sinner! tremble before the mighty cardinal hoffman!

tremble, lest he cause a great fish to swallow you up!

look upon his frown and wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command!

look upon his works, ye puny, and despair!

a revelation from the second telegram of samuel:
יְהוֹנָתָן, עַל-בָּמוֹתֶיךָ חָלָל
כז  אֵיךְ נָפְלוּ גִבּוֹרִים, וַיֹּאבְדוּ כְּלֵי מִלְחָמָה

o jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places!

how are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!


telegramsam

13 August, 2010 - 07:10

Rate this:

0 points

Can't even pronounce that, Jonathan. Intellectual pygmies? Hmmm...such as Harvey, yvetta bagel, joshua18 and your old mate hawkeye,as well as all your mates on cif.


telegramsam

13 August, 2010 - 07:13

Rate this:

0 points

Cardinal. I like that happyg. But he strikes me more like clouseau or don Quixote always tilting at windmills.


ibrows

13 August, 2010 - 08:22

Rate this:

0 points

happygoldfish

I think your finally starting to hear me. I am saying precisely that anti-Zionists oppose the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Like you state 'mots Jews agree with that'. By occupying this position, one is not in anyway calling for an elimination of the state of Israel, merely that it withdraw from occupied territory.

I am not talking about the use of the bible to justify Israel's existence within its legal pre-1967 borders, but the use of the bible to try and justify the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.

I am sure that JOnathan will be so glad to hear that 'on that definition, most british jews and israeli jews are not zionists'.


Jonathan Hoffman

13 August, 2010 - 10:48

Rate this:

0 points

Zionism is the belief in a Jewish state. It says nothing about where the borders should be. That is your myth.


ibrows

13 August, 2010 - 10:58

Rate this:

0 points

Jonathan your wrong, Many Jews and non-Jews recognise the legal pre-1967 borders of Israel, that doesn't make them Zionist.

the majority of people recognise Israel, yet oppose the occupation, so using your logic that makes them Zionists?


mattpryor

13 August, 2010 - 11:20

Rate this:

0 points

Jonathan: ibot is only arguing the point to disrupt the conversation. It can only do what it's programming tells it to do. Maybe best if the human beings just ignore it and see if we can rescue what looked to be an interesting discussion?


ibrows

13 August, 2010 - 11:29

Rate this:

0 points

matt

Finding my responses a bit uncomfortable are we? and resorting to 'hilarious' name calling. Instead of denying the nakba as its uncomfortable for you and Israel to acknowledge its past, Please check my citations of Morris and the massacre at Deir Yassin, then perhaps we can talk like grown ups


jose (not verified)

14 August, 2010 - 13:51

Rate this:

0 points

The word "Zionist" is now used in some places as a placeholder for "Jews", wherever antisemitism is punished by law.
It is not that anti-Zionism is in itself antisemitism, it is just a fact that it anti-Zionism is used as a fake term to give a good name to antisemitism.

There is no special reason to criticize Zionism. No crime have been committed in its name. No Zionist advocated the murder or the displacement of Arabs in Ottoman or Mandatory Palestine.

"Zionist" is a convenient placeholder for the word "Jew" because an enormous majority of Jews support the existence of Israel (what most people mean by "Zionist"). On the other side, non-Jews who also support the existence of Israel are never called "Zionists".

So it is very convenient to use the word "Zionist" to say exactly the same thing as usual, for racists, I regret to say. To parody "Durban I", I would conclude that anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism.


happygoldfish

14 August, 2010 - 20:27

Rate this:

0 points

ibrows, i'm still not quite clear …

are you defining zionism as supporting any permanent jewish settlement in palestine beyond the pre-1967 borders,

or are you defining zionism as use of the bible to try and justify supporting any permanent jewish settlement in palestine beyond the pre-1967 borders?

if it's the first, then i am a zionist, since i believe that completely prohibiting jewish (or other) settlement (in palestine or anywhere else in the world) is racist, and i support action to oppose racism

(and that limiting, but not prohibiting, jewish or other settlement is or is not racist depending on the circumstances, including the size of the limit)

but if it's the second, then i'm an anti-zionist!

(probably like most british jews and israeli jews)


Mohammed Amin f...

24 August, 2010 - 15:57

Rate this:

0 points

I would like to apologise to everyone who has posted comments for my going AWOL for the last two weeks since posting the blog. I believe that people who post responses normally deserve a response.

I got distracted by some things, and fasting also reduces your energy.

However, I will now proceed to go through the responses and reply where appropriate.


Mohammed Amin f...

24 August, 2010 - 16:10

Rate this:

0 points

@Jonathan Hoffman

1. Only a tiny minority of Jews oppose Zionism. See the recent JPR Survey.

2. They do not 'prove' that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, any more than Dr Harold Shipman 'proved' that all GPs murder elderly patients.

3. To deny the Jews a homeland - the essence of Zionism - is indeed antisemitic, see the EUMC Definition of Antisemitism. And there are many Muslim States, so why would a Muslim seek to deny one state to Jews?

The true test of a 'moderate Muslim' (hat tip, Melanie Phillips) is one who accepts Israel's right to exist as a State grounded in Judaism and who accepts Israel's right to defend itself from thos who would destroy it.

I am sad to say that few Muslims accept this. Do you?

1&2) A "tiny minority" can still be "many". On this point I simply disagree with you. That fact that (some/many) Jews oppose Zionism is logical proof that being anti-Zionist is not automatically being anti-Semitic.

3) I have just read the definition at http://www.european-forum-on-antisemitism.org/working-definition-of-anti... The definition is the text in bold at the top of the page and does not mention a Jewish homeland. The rest of the page consists of illustrations of views, which depending on the context, may be anti-Semitic.

My views on the need for a two state solution are in print at http://www.mohammedamin.com/Community_issues/Gaza_and_the_need_for_peace...


Mohammed Amin f...

24 August, 2010 - 16:16

Rate this:

0 points

@bataween

It is a myth that things were worse in Christian Europe than in the Muslim world.

I am afraid you need to learn some history. I am only part way through reading "In Ishmael's House" by Martin Gilbert, but am already happy to recommend it. There is nothing in the history of Muslim treatment of Jews to compare with the Russian pogroms or the Holocaust, to take only the most extreme European examples.


Mohammed Amin f...

24 August, 2010 - 16:23

Rate this:

0 points

@raycook

Although Mohammed Amin mentions Hamas's charter, he misses out the daily obscene anti-Semitic broadcasts and educational brainwashing which spew out from Gaza. And the PA is also tainted by anti-Semitism in its broadcasts and schools. This is not to mention the availability and credence given to anti-Semitic literature (such as the Protocols) in most Arab and other Muslim countries.

I'd also take issue with the statement 'Much of the Talmud was written by Jews living in the Muslim world.' This is not true as the Talmud predates Islam having been largely completed by 500CE

I agree with you regarding the propogation of anti-Semitic literature in the Middle East. I haven't got any statistics, but am aware that there is quite a lot of it, such as the Protocols, in circulation. I regard the anti-Semitism in the Hamas charter as deplorable and also very sad. In my piece I invited readers to see the world from the perspective of a Gazan Palestinian to consider how readily such anti-Semitic views might be adopted.

The Talmud - my apologies for the error. This is one of those pieces of received wisdom which I read somewhere decades ago and is inaccurate. Wikipedia makes it clear that the Gemara was essentially finished by about 500CE.


Mohammed Amin f...

24 August, 2010 - 16:34

Rate this:

0 points

@happygoldfish

Yes, my piece when first published had Muslim readers in mind, although it started life as something aimed at Christians and Jews. How is that for diversity?

Zionism was a clear philosopy. Read my reviw of "The Jewish State" at http://www.mohammedamin.com/Reviews/The-Jewish-State.html

However, you raise some interesting points about whether it is productive to use the word today. It depends on the context but they do merit further thought, and I will consider my use of the word carefully. I am happy with my use of it in the piece.

You should note that in my piece http://www.mohammedamin.com/Community_issues/Gaza_and_the_need_for_peace... which was written during Operation Cast Lead, the word does not occur.


Jonathan Hoffman

24 August, 2010 - 16:43

Rate this:

0 points

"The true test of a 'moderate Muslim' (hat tip, Melanie Phillips) is one who accepts Israel's right to exist as a State grounded in Judaism and who accepts Israel's right to defend itself from those who would destroy it."

Thank you Mr Amin. You accept Israel's right to exist as a state grounded in Judaism.

The logic of this is that Israel has the right to defend itself from those who would destroy it. But you did not respond to my question whether you accept this.

Do you?


Mohammed Amin f...

24 August, 2010 - 16:47

Rate this:

0 points

@mattpryor

With all due respect your summary of recent(ish) history is not a balanced or objective one, and this clash of narratives seems to be the root of much of the debate about the conflict.

After Britain captured Palestine from Ottoman Turkey, conflicts gradually developed between the inhabitants of Palestine and the incomers seeking to create a Jewish state in their midst, culminating in the war of 1948.

I am sorry to be blunt but this is a vague and dishonest statement. Firstly, Britain did not "capture Palestine" - Britain was charged with administering Palestine by the League of Nations. Sadly it was a task that we were not equal to - particularly after our economy and armed forces were bled dry after two world wars. For me this is a cause of national shame and it is compounded by our government's failure to speak up for Israel internationally.

Secondly, to say that "conflicts gradually developed...culminating in the war of 1948" completely whitewashes Arab aggression and rejectionism. I appreciate that you are trying to find a middle ground between two very different narratives (very BBC!) but that is not an honest position when those narratives are mutually exclusive. There was no difference - none - between the creation of modern Israel and the creation of modern Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, etc, other than the fact that Israel was not governed by Arabs.

General Allenby captured Jerusalem on 11 December 1917, and the rest of Palestine shortly afterwards. The Mandate was not granted until 24 July 1922.

The big difference between the formation of the countries you name above is that the others were created around to the people who already lived there.

Israel was to be created for the benefit of people who did not live there, against the wishes of the majority of the people who already lived there. Hence the Middle East dispute.


raycook

24 August, 2010 - 16:59

Rate this:

1 point

Mohammed, thanks for your response.

I have to take issue with this:

I invited readers to see the world from the perspective of a Gazan Palestinian to consider how readily such anti-Semitic views might be adopted

First, I can see why they might be anti-Israel. Can you see why the British might be Islamophobic after 7/7? Or just anti a certain element within the Islamic community. Hating all Jews because of Cast Lead is as obnoxious as hating all Muslims because of 7/7 or all Israelis hating all Muslims because of suicide bombings.

Second, Hamas are not anti-Semitic because of how Israel has treated Gazans, they are anti-Semitic as a central tenet of their faith and world view, as are Hizbullah. But their views are at the extreme edge of a rampant and visceral hatred of Jews throughout the Arab world, and much of the Muslim one in general to various degrees.
This hatred adds a great deal of fuel to the conflict in the ME.


Mohammed Amin f...

24 August, 2010 - 17:00

Rate this:

0 points

@jose

The word "Zionist" is now used in some places as a placeholder for "Jews", wherever antisemitism is punished by law.
It is not that anti-Zionism is in itself antisemitism, it is just a fact that it anti-Zionism is used as a fake term to give a good name to antisemitism.

There is no special reason to criticize Zionism. No crime have been committed in its name. No Zionist advocated the murder or the displacement of Arabs in Ottoman or Mandatory Palestine.

I suspect that your first point is accurate in some instances. As my piece makes clear, "anti-Zionism" and "anti-Semitism" are different things, but that does not preclude anti-Semites trying to hide their anti-Semitism and masquerade as being only anti-Zionist. You need to consider what they say on a case by case basis.

I disagree with your second point. I recently finished reading "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" by Illan Pappe, an Israeli Jewish historian. I intend to write a review once I have got round to reading and digesting some of the rebuttals that Zionist friends have sent me, but my current view is that serious pre-planned crimes were committed by Jewish forces in 1947 and 1948.


ibrows

24 August, 2010 - 17:50

Rate this:

0 points

Mohammed

I would also recommend Benny Morris (another Israeli historians) '1948 and after: Israel and the Palestinians', especially chapter 3. Although Morris dismisses the claim that the Palestinians were systematically expelled after orders from the top of the Israeli command, he nevertheless cites a IDF Intelligence Report that concludes:

'the factors that precipitated the exodus in order of importance -

1) direct, hostile Jewish [Haganah/IDF] operations against Arab settlements.

2) the effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations on nearby Arab settlements

3)Operations of the Jewish dissidents [the Irgun Z'va'i Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]' (p.88).

So according to the IDF report, cited by Morris, 70% of the exodus was caused by Israeli forces and 'Jewish dissidents.

LATEST COMMENTS