By Elie Elhadj, author of The Islamic Shield | Arab Democracy, Feb 3, 2009
For a durable solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Bible and the Quran must be de-politicized. In political terms, de-politicization means a single secular democratic state for Jews and Palestinians.
De-politicize the Bible and the Quran
The Arab Israeli conflict has become a religious war. Politicizing the Bible’s Genesis 15:18 politicized the Quran. Genesis 15:18 declares: “The Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying, unto thy seed have I given this land from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.”
Defeated in 1948, powerless and humiliated in every war since that time, Arabs took refuge in Islam. They invoked hostile Quranic Verses (such as chapter 2: verse 65, 2:120, 5:51, 5:60, 5:78), recounted purported stories of the Prophet Muhammad’s troubled relationship with the Jewish tribes in Medina (Banu Qurayza, Banu Al-Nadir, and Banu Qainuqa), and drew lessons from the symbolism of substituting Friday for the Sabbath and of changing the direction during prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca. Other Quranic verses urge jihad against Muslims enemies (2:191, 2:193, 8:60, 9:5, 9:29) and promise (2:82) the martyred the delights of paradise; wine (47:15), beautiful women (44:54), silk, brocade, and gold (18:31), etc… Combined, these verses made a jihadist’s career worthwhile. In the hands of jihadist leaders, these verses transformed political frustrations into religious crusades and the jihadists into walking bombs.
For thirteen centuries, however, these were non-issues. Hundreds of thousands of Jews lived harmoniously among Muslims in Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen.
Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, Britain’s first and thus far the only person of Jewish parentage to reach the premiership (1868 and 1874-1880), described in his novel Coningsby the “halcyon centuries” during the golden age of Muslim Spain in which the “children of Ishmael rewarded the children of Israel with equal rights and privileges with themselves.” Disraeli described glowingly how Muslims and Jews alike “built palaces, gardens and fountains; filled equally the highest offices of the state, competed in an extensive and enlightened commerce, and rivaled each other in renowned universities.”
In 1492 the Muslim Ottoman Sultan Bayezid-II (1481-1512) encouraged great numbers of Jews to settle in the Ottoman Empire following their expulsion from Spain and Portugal.
Islam venerates Judaism. Arabs believe they share a common ancestry with the Jewish people going back to the sons of Abraham, Ismail and Ishaq. The Quran praises Abraham as the first Muslim, describing Islam as the Religion of Abraham. The Quranic Chapter 14, with its 52 Verses is named after Abraham and to Joseph the Quran names Chapter 12, with its 111 Verses. Muslim men are allowed to marry Jewish women, without the need to convert them to Islam (the children must be Muslims). Today, Jewish-derived Arabic names like Daoud, Ibrahim, Ishaq, Mousa, Sara, Sulaiman, Yacoub, Yousef, Zakariyya are common in every Arab society.
Politicizing the Bible politicized the Quran. A vexing religious confrontation has been created pushing the moderates among Arab Muslims into orthodoxy and the orthodox into Islamism and Jihadism. The victory of Hamas in the January 25, 2006 parliamentary elections in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as well as the popularity of Islamic Jihad, are reminders that this conflict has been delivering the Muslim masses into the hands of the Islamists. History suggests that this religious war could go on for a20thousand years. Military action alone against the Jihadists will breed more Jihadists. Experience suggests that, like its previous victories, Israel’s latest battle against Hamas in the Gaza strip that started on December 27, 2008 will strengthen jihadism.
Unless the Arab Israeli conflict is resolved politically and quickly, Islamism and Jihadism will continue on their march. Avraham Berg, speaker of Israel’s Knesset in 1999-2003 and former chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel, articulated in sobering terms what Israel should do in order to bring peaceful coexistence between the Jewish and Palestinian peoples.
The Bible and the Quran Must be De-politicized
For a durable solution to the Arab Israeli conflict, a single democratic and secular state for Jews and Palestinians needs to evolve. A single state promises a more durable long-term solution than the two-state solution, currently in vogue. The two-state solution is inherently unstable for four reasons:
1. First, demographically, a purely Jewish state is impossible to attain. Had Palestine been uninhabited at the time of Israel’s creation a refugee problem would not have arisen and a purely Jewish state could have been possible. However, around the time of Israel’s creation Palestine was a home to around 1.4 million Palestinian Arabs.
The Zionist dream of creating an exclusive state for the Jewish people in Palestine is unsustainable in the long-term. Presently, 1.4 million Palestinians are estimated to be citizens of Israel, or a quarter of Israel’s Jewish population. Due to their high population growth rates the Palestinian-Israelis will eventually become the majority. The Palestinian-Israelis are in addition to the 4.2 million Palestinians who live under Israel’s occupation in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Outside Palestine, 2.6 millions are registered in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, plus 1.5 million scattered worldwide.
Unless the Palestinian-Israelis somehow vanish, Israel’s Jewish population will eventually become the minority and the Palestinian-Israelis the majority; the population growth rate of the Palestinian-Israelis is much greater than that of Israeli Jews. The number of Palestinians in Israel in 1948 was about 150,000. If Israel would allow the future Palestinian-Israeli majority full citizenship rights, they’ll control the government. If Israel subjects the majority to an apartheid regime, the system will eventually unravel. Apartheid regimes have short lives: Witness Rhodesia and South Africa.
2. Secondly, intractable issues stand in the way of a two-state solution: Jerusalem, borders, security for Israel and for Palestine, water rights, settlements, and the refugees’ right-of-return. Since the signing of the Oslo Agreement on September 13, 1993, none of the thorny issues has been resolved. When Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak, and Yasser Arafat attempted in July 2000 to tackle these issues at Camp David, the negotiations collapsed, leading to the second intifada and to Hamas’ gains in the 2006 parliamentary elections, which culminated by the take-over by Hamas of the Gaza Strip in June 2007, and Israel’s devastating war against Hamas eighteen months later.
3. Thirdly, even if a miracle patches up a two-state agreement the extremists on both sides would undermine the agreement. The extremists believe that they are divinely ordained to keep-up the struggle until they control the entirety of the land.
4. Fourthly, the Arab masses w ill shun a Zionist state. Judging from Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt (March 26, 1979) and Jordan (October 26, 1994), relations among the Egyptian and Jordanian masses and Israelis failed to develop beyond small diplomatic missions.
Western democratic and secular ideals should inspire the development of a single, democratic, and secular state for Palestinians and Jews. There are three reasons in support of such a development:
1. First, the intractable obstacles that have bedeviled the two-state solution would disappear.
2. Secondly, a single state will commingle Palestinians and Jews into an inseparable mix. The Jewish settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, estimated at about half a million in more than 125 settlements, could become instruments of integration between Palestinians and Jews, not segregation; a mixture of Jews among Arabs as difficult to unscramble as removing the Palestinian Israelis from Israel. A single state would lead the Arab governments to recognize the new state. Muslims everywhere, Arabs especially, would no longer have an excuse to boycott their Jewish “cousins.” Economic, cultural, educational, and social interaction would follow. The two sides would quickly learn how much they could benefit from one other.
3. Thirdly, a single state solution would allow Arabs and Jews full access to the entirety of Palestine.
The secular democratic one-state solution has been gathering pace. A well attended conference by Arabs and Israelis at London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) was held on November 17-18, 2007 to address the various aspects of this concept.
Arab and Jew Can Live Together in Peace
Around the time of Israel’s creation, more than 850,000 Jews migrated from Arab countries, 600,000 going to Israel. The charge that the Jews migrated because of Arab maltreatment is an unfair political expediency. The migration happened in the course of Israel’s creation. During this period, 531 Palestinian villages were depopulated and 805,000 refugees lost their homes, according to Palestinian sources (650,000 to 700,000 refugees, according to Jewish sources).
Had Zionism adhered to the stipulation in the 1917 Balfour declaration: “Nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,” the Muslim/Jewish conflict would not have developed.
Durable peace and the long-term prosperity of the Jewish people in the Arab World require the genuine welcome of the Arab masses. Smart bombs and nuclear weapons cannot force Arab peoples’ acceptance of a Zionist Israel. The 600,000 Jews, who had lived in Arab countries for centuries and are today a major proportion of Israel’s Jewish population, could become a positive link with the Arab World. They share with the Arab peoples many customs, habits, values, food, music, dance, and, for the older generation, the Arabic language.
Whether it would be a good bargain to exchange a partial and declining Jewish exclusivity in an unstable two-state solution for a durable single state embracing Jews and Muslims is a question Israel’s Jewish people alone can answer.
In provoking the enmity of their age-old Muslim friends, Zionism has disserved the long-term interests of the Jewish people.
Elhadj is the author of Elie Elhadj, author of The Islamic Shield: Arab Resistance to Democratic and Religious Reforms, and many articles which can be read here: www.daringopinion.com
MIDEAST: Extremism Dominates Israeli Polls
February 13, 2009By Mel Frykberg | Inter Press Service
RAMALLAH, Feb 12 (IPS) – “The peace process is based on three false basic assumptions,” said Avigdor Lieberman, leader of Israel’s extreme right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu party, which will dictate the formation and political course of the next Israeli government.
“These include the assertion that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the main cause of instability in the Middle East, that the conflict is territorial and not ideological, and that the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders will end the conflict.”
Lieberman’s politics and ideology fly in the face of international law, various UN Security Council resolutions, the basis of all Israeli peace agreements with the Palestinians, moderate Israelis, and the U.S. government.
Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu emerged from Tuesday’s Israeli elections the big winner even though it came in third behind the centre-left Kadima party led by Tzipi Livni, which netted 28 seats, and Benjamin Netanyahu’s hawkish Likud party which won 27.
The tiny gap between Israel’s two main parties could narrow completely as there are over a 100,000 absentee votes yet to be counted. Many of these include the votes of Israeli soldiers in the field who traditionally vote for the right, and would presumably support Netanyahu.
Likud and Kadima were always expected to be the main contenders for the next Israeli government as the Labour party led by defence minister Ehud Barak continued to weaken and limped in, in fourth position.
Yisrael Beiteinu’s meteoric rise to power and increasing popularity reflect the growing mood of militancy in Israel as the voters veer increasingly to the right, especially in the wake of Israel’s recent bloody assault on Gaza.
Although Lieberman garnered 15 seats, fewer than the 20 predicted by political analysts on the eve of the elections, his strong showing will enable him to strongly influence who leads the next government.
During the next few weeks Kadima and Likud will be scrambling to try and win support for a coalition government to secure the necessary 61-seat majority in Israel’s 120-member Knesset, or parliament.
Israeli President Shimon Peres will then decide which party is more likely to form a coalition and elect that party’s leader as the next prime minister who will then have to form a coalition.
Both Livni and Netanyahu are currently courting Lieberman furiously and although he has said he is open to both parties, he also stated that he preferred a strong national far-right government, in other words Netanyahu’s Likud.
In the unlikely event that Yisrael Beiteinu agrees to form a coalition government with Kadima, Livni would still need to shore up either Labour’s support, or the ultra-orthodox Shaz party, as well as some of the smaller parties.
The ideological and political differences between Kadima and Labour are not insurmountable but more an issue of personality clashes between the respective leaders.
It is uncertain what Labour will do, and it appears that Netanyahu will emerge as the next prime minister. This doesn’t portend well for the future of the peace process. Netanyahu has stated that he will crush Hamas should he lead Israel again.
This is despite the plethora of evidence and growing international, regional and even domestic opinion that there is no military solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, and that Hamas can no longer be ignored and sidelined from any political equation.
Netanyahu is also on record as saying that he would continue to support the expansion and establishment of new illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
This is a major bone of contention with the Palestinian Authority (PA), Israel’s peace partner which controls the West Bank.
Lieberman, who lives in a settlement in the West Bank himself, is even more extremist than Netanyahu, and will provide even further political succour for a far-right government.
Besides being an extremist, Lieberman, who is currently being investigated by the Israeli police for fraud, has also been accused of racism. While foreign and Israeli reporters were permitted to cover his election campaign, Arab reporters were banned by Yisrael Beiteinu.
Moldovan-born Lieberman, a former nightclub bouncer and immigrant to Israel, also wants the transfer of the Arab populations in several Israeli-Arab towns in northern Israel to a future Palestinian state unless they “prove their loyalty.”
He has promised to bring in a new bill requiring all Israeli-Arabs to swear loyalty to the Jewish state or lose their citizenship.
He regards the anti-Gaza war sentiment of Israel’s Arab citizens, who saw thousands of their Palestinian brethren killed and maimed, as an act of disloyalty.
Ahmad Tibi, an Arab-Israeli Knesset member accused Lieberman of being a racist immigrant who was fighting against Israel’s indigenous population, the Israeli-Arabs or those Palestinians with Israeli passports.
Former leftist Israeli politician Yossi Sarid asked, “What’s the difference between his party and all the fascist parties in Europe? It’s the same message, the same technique, taking advantage of the same fears.”
The Palestinian Authority, under the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, said it was willing to negotiate with any new Israeli government if it was committed to peace.
PA officials did state off the record, however, that they hoped Livni would ultimately triumph after the final count of outstanding votes.
The problem, however, is that the Yisrael Beiteinu leader is not thrilled with the idea of a two-state resolution to the protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
“Israel needs to explain that the demand for a Palestinian state and the refugees’ right of return is a cover for radical Islam’s attempt to destroy the State of Israel,” said Lieberman.
Any hope of a compromise with the leadership of Hamas in the wake of the Gaza military operation appears even more remote as Lieberman has ruled out any ceasefire with the Islamic resistance organisation, and advocated its destruction instead.
Meanwhile, on the Palestinian street the indifference to any new Israeli government was evident. Palestinians have seen the settlements grow and the continued expropriation of their land and other resources under all Israeli governments from the supposedly leftist Labour to the rightist Likud. (END/2009)
Share this:
Tags:Avigdor Lieberman, Israel, Israeli elections, Kadima and Likud, Yisrael Beiteinu, Yossi Sarid
Posted in Commentary, Zionist Israel | Leave a Comment »