Earlier this week, Leeds University cancelled a talk and a two-day workshop which was due to be delivered by the German academic and former adviser to his country's Green Party, Matthias Küntzel, on what he calls "Islamic Antisemitism" in the Arab world and Iran, which he argues is a legacy of Nazi propaganda (reports: Times, Telegraph; blogs: Harry's Place, Drink Soaked Trots). The talks were cancelled for security reasons, according to the University, "because - contrary to our rules - no assessment of risk to people or property has been carried out, no stewarding arrangements are in place and we were not given sufficient notice to ensure safety and public order". Others are saying they bowed to protests from Muslim students; the president of the college's Islamic society remarked that he had searched for his writings on the internet and found them "not very pleasant".
Clearly, the university has its rules and if people organising a talk do not abide by them, they run the risk of having the talk cancelled. However, the impression given is that the event was part of a whole series at the German department and it is only this one that has been cancelled, so perhaps the college do feel that this is a sensitive topic which requires more serious consideration with regard to security. It should be said that the response from Muslims was of a protestatory rather than threatening nature, as Küntzel acknowledged. Another talk was due to be given on Tuesday evening, by Ronit Ben-Dor, the Director of Public Affairs at the Israeli embassy in London, which also drew Muslim protest, organised by the college's Jewish Society.
A draft of the talk can be found here, and having read through it, I cannot call it racist or inflammatory. There are, however, a number of oversights in the piece, which could have been put to the speaker if he had been allowed to deliver the talk. For example:
(1) The paper begins with a brief description of the July 2006 Lebanon war, with no acknowledgement of how it really started (the capture of Israeli soldiers) and how disproportionate the Israeli response (the bombing of Lebanese civilian targets) was. He then diverges into describing the anti-Semitic propaganda of Hezbollah's TV station al-Manar, including a serialisation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in which a group of Jews are shown cutting a Christian child's throat in order to make unleavaned bread for Passover, a scene which, he suggests, would be recalled by anyone who saw "the pictures of the dead civilians in Lebanon and of the children of Beit Hanoun, killed by a stray Israeli shell". The recycling of imported propaganda from Europe with its tissue of lies, which had never been believed in the Muslim world until very recently, is indefensible, but I would suggest that no such propaganda is needed to inspire a severe response in anyone who saw, or indeed knew of, the result of the bombing of Lebanon last year.
(2) He notes that, in the 1920s, Jews were not regarded as a threat to the Arab world by its politicians, but as an economic asset, and the Arab élite of Egypt, for example, welcomed the arrival of Jews for this reason. There are two problems here. First, these were precisely the élite, and were often either the clients of a colonial or effectively colonial régime, as in Egypt, or were a small, unpresentative westernised clique which had seized power, as in Iran. They were not the great mass of the population; indeed, they often oppressed the mass of the population by such means as prohibiting their normal garments, as they do in Turkey and Tunisia to this day. Second, in regarding the "return" of Jews from Europe to be beneficial, they may not have considered that Zionism would lead to the seizure by Jews of a tract of Arab land, with the result of most of its inhabitants being expelled and being replaced with Jewish emigrants from Syria and Egypt; they may have expected Jews settling as equals throughout greater Syria and Egypt.
(3) He alleges that Rashid Rida, whom he names as a teacher of Hassan al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood), Shaikh Izz al-Deen al-Qassaam and the mufti Amin al-Husseini, was an "Islamic traditionalist" and "a religious scholar heavily influenced by the Saudi Wahhabites". He was in fact a modernist, and the movement towards "re-opening the gates of ijtihaad" (i.e. allowing for fresh reasoning on matters of Islamic law) originate with him and his associates and teachers. The movement is widely rejected by Muslim traditionalists, many of whom consider it heretical.
As for Hassan al-Banna, he was certainly not a Wahhabi and not an anti-Semite either. Indeed, an anti-Ikhwaan Wahhabi group based in Birmingham (in England) calls the movement he founded the "Bankrupt Brotherhood" (Ikhwaan al-Muflisoon) and cites the following from him (see this PDF) by way of denunciation:
And then there is the statement of Hasan al-Banna, "And I affirm here that our dispute with the Jews is not one concerning the religion because the Qur'an has encouraged us to befriend them and be cordial with them. And Islam is Shari'ah for humankind before it is a Shari'ah for a specific group of people. And it has praised them (the Jews) and has placed agreement between us and them, "And do not dispute with the People of the Book except by that which is best".
And they cite this, from Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi:
He says, in addition to the enormity of al-Banna, "We do not fight the Jews for the sake of aqida (i.e. religion)!! We are fighting them for the sake of land!! We do not fight them because they are kuffaar!! We fight them because they have occupied our land and have taken it without due right".
Yes, there are sections of the Muslim Brotherhood which are Wahhabi-inclined and Wahhabis who are Muslim Brotherhood sympathisers, but al-Banna was, nonetheless, not one of them, even if one (among many) of his teachers was influenced by them (again, among many other things, including other modernists at al-Azhar).
(4) Küntzel concludes:
The historical record gives the lie to the assumption that Islamic antisemitism is caused by Zionism or Israeli policy. In fact, it is not the escalation of the Middle East conflict that has given rise to antisemitism; it is rather antisemitism that has given rise to the escalation of the Middle East conflict.
There is a sure way of identifying the real roots of such antisemitism, and that is to look at the current attitude in this part of the world to Hitler and the Nazis. When Germans in Beirut, Damascus or Amman find themselves inundated with compliments on account of Hitler, what does this have to do with Israel? When Iranian cartoons show Anne Frank in bed with Adolf Hitler, what on earth has this to do with Zionism?
What it has to do with Zionism is that Nazi Germany was the enemy both of the Jews and of the British and French colonial régimes at the time when the plan to seize part of Palestine was afoot. The Holocaust denial which is prevalent is significant: most Arabs may not believe that Hitler murdered as many Jews as he is known to have done in the West. Of course, there were those in the Arab élite who supported the colonisers because they got rich and had a good time, and Palestinians who did not fight Israel because they preferred to work for the Jews on their citrus groves.
The vast majority of Arabs, however, were either religious or nationalistic, as might be expected: they wanted their land - all of it - for themselves, and many of them wanted a return to classical religious rule. I would add that, with or without Zionism, there would have been a religious rebellion against secular rule in the Arab world, and with or without Nazi propaganda, there would have been opposition to Zionism. The idea of Jews settling in Egypt, Syria or even Palestine would have been acceptable, but the idea of them being yet another foreign aggressor, ruling over and forcing out a group of Arab Muslims from a tract of land which had been Arab and predominantly Muslim for centuries, would certainly not have been.
"Exposing" Arab anti-Semitic prejudice is a common line of pro-Zionist propaganda, of course; we see MEMRI clips of children talking about martyrdom or repeating abusive phrases about Jews they learned from some adult who should know better, such as this one, recently blogged at Harry's Place, on Palestinian TV - as if Muslims have a monopoly on such behaviour or of putting their children in harm's way; but it is no more than a self-serving delusion to see Muslim hostility to Israel's existence as no more than a product of anti-Semitism or the influence of Nazi propaganda. I think it better that he be able to give this talk in a couple of other places where his ludicrous thesis can be challenged, rather than censored with threats, complaints and bureaucratic nit-picking.
The idea of Jews settling in Egypt, Syria or even Palestine would have been acceptable, but the idea of them being yet another foreign aggressor, ruling over and forcing out a group of Arab Muslims from a tract of land which had been Arab and predominantly Muslim for centuries, would certainly not have been.
In other words it would have been OK for the Jews to live as dhimmis but not to have one tiny (less than .02% of total), and at the time barely populated sliver of land, that was pretty much a desert when the Arabs had it, and which the Arabs, in any case, seized by force, while Jews had lived there continuously for thousands of years.
Muslim hositility to Israel is not about land. Israel is incredibly small. Muslims have plenty of land. If Israel, tiny though it is, were handed over to the Arabs, it would be a desert again in a few years.
No, Muslims are hostile to the idea of Jews, who should be dhhimmis, living freely and - because they are intelligent and hard working - making a success of the tiny piece of land that is rightfully theirs, in a sea of Muslim failure that is the Middle East.
OP, you clearly didn't read what I wrote, did you? The people being talked about were secular Arab nationalists and the system of non-Muslims living as dhimmis had not existed in Egypt for some time, even by then. As I made clear in point 2 above, they expected the Jews to settle as equals.
Palestine was not a desert before the Jews invaded and there were towns and cities like Jaffa, Nahariyya, Asqalan and the towns of the West Bank; many Palestinians, even today, are farmers (until the Israelis destroy their crops, as they are in the habit of doing). It is very simple to make a desert bloom; it just takes water. (How long your desert will bloom depends on how renewable your water source is.)
Israel, as a settler colony mostly settled by Jews from other First World countries, imported its success rather than creating it indigenously.
The main problem with the Arab world is that it has loads and loads of oil, and almost no other natural resources, leading to warped "rentier state" economies.
For similar reasons Spain (which for centuries lived off New World plunder) ended up as one of the most backward countries in Western Europe.
Muslim hositility to Israel is not about land. Israel is incredibly small. Muslims have plenty of land.
If the Germans had defeated Britain in World War II and annexed London, while leaving the rest of the UK intact, do you think that the Brits would just get over losing London?
Wouldn't it be more likely that retaking London would become an obsession that would prevent Britain from moving on?
Another point, it is because Arabic is such a difficult language for Westerners that MEMRI-style propaganda is so effective. I do know that jihadi groups have used similar propaganda on occasion, like here (although being in English it would not be exploiting the language barrier as MEMRI does).
Agree with George, except that most of the jews in Israel come from east Europe, hardly first world. Not surprising that pRickler is a zionist cretin peddling fables about dhimmis and how "small" Israel is.
I guess annexation and terrorism and mass murder is ok, then. What a degenerate.
Israel is small, very small, and was pretty barren before the Jews made a success of it.
The comparision with London is silly. London is and was a thriving city. Israel left to the Arabs would be a backward useless place just as Arab countries are now.
The myth that Palestine was a barren wildnerness before Israelis kindly took it over and put it to good use is precisely that - a myth. From what I have read, not even 'mainstream' (Zionist) Israeli historians go along with that piece of Zionist propoganda any more.
What Julaybib said. I don't think pRickler cares about Israel but simply wants to demonstrate how much she hates Muslims, to peddle such racist tripe. I doubt that this shriveled up skunk has ever foot outside of most neglected area of England.
Whats a BNP reject to do?
No, I don't hate Muslims, and I've travelled a lot in the Middle East. And there are some good people but with a lot of problems, caused by set ideas and a wish to blame Israel instead of getting on with their lives.
Please pRickler, atleast make up something believable. You've never set foot in the Middle East, nor do you know any Muslims. The rampant stupidity and racism in all of your posts is a testament to that. Don't backtrack now, hypocrite.
Indeed I have (been to the Middle East - have you? - and known Muslims). If I didn't know any Muslims, by your logic I would be saying that they are all horrible, which is stupid.
Mr Smith classes Kuntzel's thesis as "ludicrous", yet has little idea of what it's about owning to the fact radical Islamists have had the man's presentation cancelled.
What "Yosuf", and various other fellow travellers, never expected to see are the huge numbers of apostate Muslims who've imbibed the faith since birth, and who are more than willing, as a result, to challenge and expose the misconceptions, deceptions and hatred that they've come to know so well.
Islam's repression and violent intimidation( right from the get-go) is such that it is only apsotates who are in a position to tell the truth.
They are the new Soviet dissidents.
What is ludicrous are individuals who've suspended critical thought to such an extent they'll embrace a razia-ideology merely because it's gussied up with a few Abrahamic soundbytes.
The hoodwink always begins with massive appeals to Jesus and Maryiam, but those being fooled are never told that this Jesus and this Maryiam are, in fact, merely the property of mohammed
Islam is ludicrous, but to be had by Islam, and to be cantonned within it forever; that is a tragedy.
And a track-record 14 centuries long doesn't lie.
Old Pickler's Zionist line about Israel making the "desert bloom" is actually irrelevant as it's an issue of rightful ownership of territory - not efficeint use of it. Arabs were the inhabitants of Palestine continuously for over a thousand years, Jews only became a majority after the British occupiers allowed unfettered immigration of European Jews without the permission of the native populace. Whether Arbs turn it into a desert wasteland or not is irrelevant - people have the right to do with their property as they see fit. Jews may have lived continuously in Palestine but only in very small numbers since the time of the Roman Empire. Before 1948 there had never been a Jewish state or majority for centuries, if not millenia.
Dimwit Palubiski, go read my original article AGAIN and you will realise that I DID INDEED READ HIS DRAFT, which is available as a PDF, to which I provided a link, so I DO KNOW what he was talking about. My article was based on his draft, on which his talk would have been based. Can't you read, or do you only read what suits your prejudices?
I DID INDEED READ HIS DRAFT,
His "draft" isn't the issue.....and your opinion of it even less so!
A draft, which though "ludicrous", must nonetheless be supressed and silenced in the interests of certain pre-enlightenment prejudices.
God welcomes open examination and intellectual curiosity, Yosuf, whereas satan curses both!
What is important to retain from this episode is the way in which islamists, though their intimidation and threats, have shut down our god-given right to free speech.
What is important to remember, too, is that Islam, with its inherent brittleness and facile recourse to violence, can broker no criticism and cannot, thus, adapt itself to modernity.
Perhaps you should be reading a "draft" of the New Testament, Yosuf.
well Raahshid, if you're against newly created states, how about giving Pakistan back to India?
The reason the Jews need a separate state is because Muslims cannot live with them as equals. Arabs within Israel have full rights, and more rights than they have anywhere else.
Arabs got this tiny piece of land by force in the first place. It was sparsely populated when Jews immigrated and made it work, then more Arabs immigrated to cash in on the labours of those with a work ethic. Because the Arabs could not live peacefully with the Jews, it needed to be partioned.
So-called Palestinians (ie Jordanians and Egyptians) could have had a separate state decades ago, but this isn't what they want, as the election of genocidal Hamas makes clear.
Just when did Arabs become the populace of Palestine by force? If you're referring to the intial conquest of Palestine over a millenia ago then maybe. But if you're going to go that far back, we can easily argue that Jews came to associate themselves with the region by force also through the conquests of the Prophet David (AS). That would just be plain silly as virtually every part of the world is now inhabited by people who long ago invaded a territory.
We've heard the usual Zionist myths about how it was uninhabited, Jews made the desert bloom etc. while conveniently ignoring the admissions by early Zionists of the need to ethnically cleanse the native populations to make room for the European Jews who were to make their project work. The fact is, the flood of Jews came under the British mandate - the British themselves had no right to decide whether other people's territory should be given over to another group or not. The Jews' ability to make the land thrive isn't the issue, it's whether they had the right to enter other people's territory and take it or not. Since the native population never gave their permission, Israel's creation from the beginning was not legitimate.
I don't know how Pakistan is related to this discussion, but I personally disagree with the notion of Indian partition. However the situation is still different in that Pakistanis and Bangladeshis were indigenous to the territory where they created their state, whereas Israelis are almost entirely foreign colonisers.
Most of the land was bought by Jews at inflated prices from absentee Ottoman landlords.
So, the British encouraged Jewish immigration. So what? They were entitled to do this. The land wasn't owned by the Arabs anyway - but by the Turks, who lost it in the war.
The fact is, Israel is tiny. Arabs have 99.998% of the land in the Middle East and all the oil. And they're still incapable of creating stable societies or a modern economy.
Since the native population never gave their permission,
The "native population", which included Jews did not need to give their permission. The land did not belong to the Arabs in the first place. The British were entitled to do what they liked with it, having won it fair and squre from the Turks. By giving it to a people who were intelligent, hard working and competent they made the best use of it. What use have the Arabs made of their huge unearned oil wealth or all the rest of the land, all 99.998% of it.
Only a few Arabs were forcibly expelled from what is now Israel. The rest left - were told to leave - when the surrounding barbarians threatened to attack it. The ones that remain have full rights as Israeli citizens.
Through irresponsible breeding, the "Palestinian" population has now swollen so that the territory is overcrowded. Tough.
"every part of the world is now inhabited by people who long ago invaded a territory."
How do you decide when it is so long ago that we accept it as a fait accompli and grant that state legitimacy, Raashid?
"Since the native population never gave their permission, Israel's creation from the beginning was not legitimate."
If the only valid factor the creation of a state is the permisiion of the original native population, how many states are legitimate?
"Israelis are almost entirely foreign colonisers." How long does it take for invaders and their defendants to stop being "foreign colonisers" and become the "native population"?
It may be regrettable, but the fact remains that Israel does exist as an effective and powerful state. Any discussions of the future that assume that because people think it shouldn't exist they need only pretend it doesn't exist until the state and its inhabitants take the hint and vanish are a delusory waste of time and energy.
Most of the land was bought by Jews at inflated prices from absentee Ottoman landlords.
A considerable part of today's Israel proper was seized at gunpoint - almost all of the Galilee for example...
The fact is, Israel is tiny. Arabs have 99.998% of the land in the Middle East and all the oil. And they're still incapable of creating stable societies or a modern economy.
Most of the countries in the Middle East and North Africa (the main exceptions being Israel, Iran and Egypt) are not real countries at all, but artificial entities drawn on a map by colonial powers.
The petty states of pre-Bismarck Germany weren't particularly advanced or progressive either.
Also, I think the huge oil supplies in the Arab world are a curse, for a number of reasons:
1) They give a powerful incentive to foreign imperialist meddlers.
2) They give the ruling kings and dictators an independent income, which makes them unaccountable to their people.
3) They give a powerful incentive to the rulers NOT to develop real productive economies (as these would undermine their own power).
4) They make any non-oil exports uncompetitive in world markets, due to the "Dutch disease".
Yusuf,
I see that the nasty bigoted troll John P is skulking around your website.I have sparred with him in the past and believe me the only thing he has to offer is blind anti muslim hatred.Don't bother to respond to this retard;ignore him and he will eventually crawl into the polluted hole he calls home.
So pRickler, where exactly did you tour with the IDF again? What zionist droppings have you been eating? What a pathetic liar.
In the meantime stop trying to be something you are not, you are not given to an ounce of sound reasoning, and cling to a joke of a worldview.
I don't think your mindless ad hominems will do any good, DrM.
I'm beginning to see why so many people apply the crude insult of "fascist" so readily after reading Pickler's comments. According to him, the British had the right to distribute land captured by force from another state simply because they were able to - in other words, might made right.
This discussion further illustrates just why peace is probably not possible as neither side accepts the intial premise of legitimicay from the other. I don't accept that the British had the right to allow foreign Jews to enter Palestine in large numbers (nor the Zionist claims that they "bought" up the majority of the land there), nor do I see the significance in OP repeatedly bringing up Jews' effectiveness in land use in comparison to the Arabs since for me it's not an issue of effective use of land it's about rightful property ownership. If I allow my house to become delapidated, I still don't accept even 1% of it being given away to strangers by force just because they can make better use of it; it's still mine and I can use it as I wish.
Thersistes - an interesting point, in actuality the legitimacy of many states ultimately is only in the minds of people. Illegal Mexican immigrants beleive in "El Norte" - that the US southwest is rightfully their ancestral lands which they have more right to inhabit then the Anglos; the Chinese beleive Tibet is their rightful territory based on their notions of what were the ancient Chinese kingdoms; the Greeks still beleive Constantinople is rightfully theirs 500 years after the Turkish conquest; Argentines still beleive they were wrongfully denied the Malvinas and of course Jews beleive they are the rightful owners of Palestine and much of the Middle East because God said so 3000 years ago...
I see that the nasty bigoted troll John P is skulking around your website.
Hand on to you hijab, Su.
Would you like to meet a few of the growing numbers of ex-muslims?
Would you like to challenge their *bigotry*.....and get yer ass whipped?
The problemes we see involving *islamic* land disputes are due to the fact that islam doesn't really have any legitimate claim to these territories.
Whose fault is it if you invade someone else's land, stick a mosque on it, claim the masjid was been "ordained" by god and then discover that god doesn't quite agree?
the Greeks still beleive Constantinople is rightfully theirs 500 years after the Turkish conquest;
Uh.... Constantinople was recaptured ( quite easily, in fact) by allied forces immediately after WWI. It was only handed back to the Turks on condition Turkey embrace secularism and act as a bulwark against the newly established Soviet Union.
That, in light of Turkey's current fascination for islamism, was a mistake.
And if 500 years is sufficient to legitimately possess a conquered land, then why the hell do obnoxious, backward gasbags like Bin Laden crow on about Andalus and the loss of Spain?
Wait! I get it!
The 500 year rule of thumb applies only to those lands that have fallen under islamic oppression, and never to muslim territories liberated by Christianity.....or Judaism.
Such logic is lunacy, of course, and its origins no part of any Abrahamic tradition
I assume, Raashid, you will be keen to give the land and property back to the descendants of the Jews who were expelled from the rest of the Middle East? Oh wait, as John P says, it's a one way street.
"in actuality the legitimacy of many states ultimately is only in the minds of people. "
In actuality the actual existing state controlling the territory concerned is the relevant state.
"If England [or whatever ideal country you think up] were what England seems
And not the England of our dreams..."
is dangerous even as a fantasy- that's what lies under the BNP, the Hindutva, al-qaeda; they want to make their ideals realities- but in reality people have to deal with actual existing countries with the actual existing people in them.
Old Pickler: I assume, Raashid, you will be keen to give the land and property back to the descendants of the Jews who were expelled from the rest of the Middle East? Oh wait, as John P says, it's a one way street.
On the MPACUK forum (hardly pro-Israel) Raashid has been in trouble for his anti-semitism. What do you think of the views expressed there by Yahya, who advocated that both of the ethnic cleansings committed in 1948 in the Middle East should be reversed?
Yahya was one of my favourite posters on that forum, but he hasn't posted since March 6th, 2006. I wonder if he's died of cancer (he mentioned a cancer diagnosis as playing a role in his conversion to Islam).
JP: And if 500 years is sufficient to legitimately possess a conquered land, then why the hell do obnoxious, backward gasbags like Bin Laden crow on about Andalus and the loss of Spain?
Perhaps it is because of the fact that the Christians ethnically cleansed the Muslims after their victory. Then again, the Turkish conquest of Asia Minor was very brutal itself (far more brutal than the Islamic conquests of the 7th and 8th centuries). The original Turks were after all horse barbarians quite similar to the Mongols.
There is an inherent lopsidedness in Christian-Muslim wars because Islam is stronger than Christianity: Muslims can often convert conquered Christian lands to Islam, while Christians must ethnically cleanse conquered Muslim lands if they wish to Christianize them.
The French offered special privileges to Muslim Algerians who were willing to substitute French civil law for Shari'ah law. This is a much smaller step than outright conversion to Christianity, but there were still few takers.
What do you think of the views expressed there by Yahya, who advocated that both of the ethnic cleansings committed in 1948 in the Middle East should be reversed?
Simply impractical. Jews going to live in the Middle Eastern countries of their ancestors would simply be slaughtered. "Palestinians" going to live in the country of their ancestors, insofar as this is Israel rather than, as in most cases, Jordan or Egypt, would fare better, because Israelis are more civilised, but soon they would, by sheer demography, overwhelm the Jewish population, and the economy, democracy and everything that makes Israel a beacon of civilisation, would vanish in a very short time.
I have no problem with Middle Eastern Jews returning to Baghdad, Egypt or anywhere else they may be indigenous to. I'm highly sceptical as George's link to MPAC shows (though I'd dispute that using the term World Jewry is antisemtic - I got it from the Evening Standard) I'm sceptical that Jews were ever ethnically cleansed in any great numbers from the Middle East. Like the Ethiopian and former Soviet Jews later on, they were probably keen to simply live in an advanced wealthy Western country rather then a poor, backward Arab one.
OP - Western sentiments are as one-way as Islamic ones. They consistently bemoan that Islamic fundamentalists' basis for legitimacy rests in their faith, that Hamas et al are irrational because they won't recognise Israel as amatter of duty. Yet at the same time, they see nothing wrong with basing Israel's legitimacy on a religious belief in the promise made to Jews by God. The difference is that Christian and Jews play two faces: preaching Israel's legitimacy to their flock (and the Anglo_Protestant colonisation of the US for that matter) whilst using the secular "Jews bought the land and made the desert bloom" argument to a secular western audience.
Thersistes - I agree that the reality of states is significant in how they are dealt with, but of course the relative strenghts of peoples also becomes a reality in how those states are dealt with. For example, Europeans colonised the Americas because they could and then, as now believe the fact they could build the nation they wanted meant it was legitimate all along.
Similarly, Mexicans recolonising the American southwest beleive they have a right to inhabit that land and probably secede, though their weak position vis a vis the American state prevents them from doing so - for now. If at somepoint in the future the US state becomes weaker, they may be unable to prevent a Hispanic secession which wouldn't be legitimate according to the US Constitution and all who still beleive in it, but would be to the irredentists themselves.
There is an inherent lopsidedness in Christian-Muslim wars because Islam is stronger than Christianity:
Not true, George.
The difference between Spanish and French, both latin languages, lies in the fact that the former has elements of Arabic.
Languages don't lie. Many Spaniards are partly of Arab descent and their converion to Christianity began long before the expulsions of 1492. Ditto for Southern Italy and Sicily.
If there is a lopsided nature to the dynamic of Christian/Islamic conquests and conversions, it resides in the fact Islam places no moral constraints on the treatment of conquered peoples; just about any atrocity is permitted in the promotion of the cause.
You assertion that the Arab conquests were "milder" that those of the Ottomans doesn't stand up.
The Arab conquests of both Egypt and North Africa amount to nothing less, all things said, than one long, huge genocide. Islam didn't convert North Africans, it murdered them.
The proof for this is out in the open for all to see. Egytpian Copts, the indigenous inhabitants of the country "look" different than their Arabo/Muslim countrymen. They have a different phenotype.
Likewise, the indigenous inhabitants of Algeria, the Berbers, are virtually indistinguishable from Europeans, but stick out like sore thumbs when compared to their "fellow" Arabs.
Every heard the expression "tete de ble"?
It's french for "head of wheat".
It's a term of endearment Berbers often use among themselves to desgintate those in the community who've blond hair.
"Blondie".
North Africans, thus didn't "convert" to islam. They were killed off and their place taken by Arab immigrants. North Africa was Islam's first killing field.
Big difference!
In fact, if one were to do DNA tests on both Copts and Berbers, it would soon become obvious that neither group has anything in common with Arabs.
On the other hand, the Arabs who now occupy North Africa and who constitute the vast majority of its inhabitants would be found to have genetic material that is virtually idetical to their Saudi cousins.
You should really talk to some Algerian Berbers ( as I have) and get the straight dope on this, George.
They, and they alone, know what took place and they recorded this genocide in great detail.
Raashid: Yet at the same time, they see nothing wrong with basing Israel's legitimacy on a religious belief in the promise made to Jews by God.
No, I think the main legitimator for Israel in the West runs along the lines that "The Jews are a nation, and therefore deserve their own state as do any other nation".
Anti-Zionists are either anti-Semites (Jew-haters), or they are people who are ideologically hostile to the entire nation-state idea (eg Communists, some Islamists)
JP:
It probably didn't take genocide for the arab conquerors of Egypt to eventually outnumber the copts: a privileged religion that encouraged conversion and practised polyandry and intermarriage with women from the conquered community on one side and a monogamous subject religion with some of the men becoming celibate meant that simple demographics would produce a similar effect over more than a thousand years. Similarly with the berbers. One reason why the conquest of Spain failed was internecine warfare between the arabs and berbers. An apparently monolithic set of conquerors are lot more impressive and persuasive than ones that fight and quarrel among themselves, apart from the oportunities the latter present to the conquered.
The treatment of the conquered by Europeans in the Americas shows that moral considerations didn't count for much there either.
Well yes, in the West collectively that may be the belief, but amongst Jews and US Christians they derive legitimacy from God. But as they know most Westerners don't buy into that they tend to put forward a support based on a secular argument, i.e. Israel must be supported as it's the only democracy etc. they were their first, the Arabs hate them because they're anti-Semitic etc.
Most Muslims reject Israel due to the nature it came about at the expense of their fellow Muslims. I very much doubt they give any great ideological thought to it.
John Palubiski: Not true, George. The difference between Spanish and French, both latin languages, lies in the fact that the former has elements of Arabic. Languages don't lie.
Firstly, the English-speaking peoples in North America and in Australia pursued essentially genocidal policies against the indigenous peoples in those regions. However it didn't stop Aboriginal words entering the English language (mostly relating to flora and fauna, or to Aboriginal life).
Secondly, the Arabic influence isn't the only reason why Spanish is different from French. French was also influenced by non-Latin languages – the ancient Gauls counted in twenties, and this is still reflected in modern French "soixante, soixante-dix, quatre-vingts, quatre-vingt-dix". French was also influenced by the Germanic languages, this is why French (alone among modern major Romance languages) requires explicit subject pronouns.
In addition, Vulgar Latin (the predecessor of the modern Romance languages spoken by ordinary Romans, as opposed to literary Classical Latin – think of the difference between dialectal Arabic and Qur'anic Arabic for a comparison) was not uniform throughout the Empire. In Italia and Gaul the people used plus for "more" and habere for "to have" (which ultimately became più and avere in Italian and plus and avoir in French), while in Hispania they used magis for "more" and tenere for "to have" (leading to modern más and tener).
In addition, all modern Romance languages smashed the Latin case system, but Italian based its plurals on the Latin nominative case changing -o (Latin -us) to -i and -a to -e (Latin -ae), while the others based its plurals on the Latin accusative case, ultimately simplifying to the addition of an -s (or -es for Spanish words ending in a consonant). Also, the Latin terminals were more thoroughly smashed in French than in the other Romance languages – Latin lupus and luna became lupo and luna in Italian, lobo and luna in Spanish, but loup and lune (silent "e") in French.
John Palubiski: Every heard the expression "tete de ble"? It's french for "head of wheat". It's a term of endearment Berbers often use among themselves to desgintate those in the community who've blond hair. "Blondie".
I can't believe that in such a sunny region that the indigenous population would be blonde. It is far more likely that blonde "Berbers" are actually the descendents of Europeans who were enslaved by the Barbary Pirates.
Thersites: It probably didn't take genocide for the arab conquerors of Egypt to eventually outnumber the copts: a privileged religion that encouraged conversion and practised polyandry
I think you mean polygyny (one man, several wives). Polyandry (one woman, several husbands) is not permitted in Islam (or in the vast majority of other human cultures).
Thersites: One reason why the conquest of Spain failed was internecine warfare between the arabs and berbers.
I'd suggest that dependence on 'barbarian' mercenaries was the downfall of many a Middle Eastern empire.
As you rightly mention, al-Andalus was torn apart by its Berber mercenaries, but did you also know that the Umayyad caliphate in Damascus was largely destroyed by Persian heavy cavalry (who were little changed from their Sassanid predecessors), and that once the Abbasids lost the old Persian cavalry country they resorted to Turkish mercenaries, and were ultimately puppetized by them.
It is very refreshing to see an open and frank debate where there is actually a level playing field with the proponents of "Islam"...
Which I think has certainly become too proscriptive.... and politicised... as a means of overpowing anyone else whom doesn't agree.
Was this what their prophet had in mind at the start...
So "bnp in UK" tell us whats really on your mind. Better yet, why bother since you dont have one?
Pot, kettle, black.
On the subject of Arab genocide of Berbers, it did happen, but not at the time of the Islamic conquests. (In fact the Byzantines were holding off the Arabs reasonably well in North Africa until the Berbers converted to Islam and hit 'em in the rear).
The mass murder of Berbers was perpetrated about two centuries later by the Shi'a Fatimid dynasty, which hated the Berbers for being Sunni.