Islam: The Foundation of the Middle East Conflict

Posted By Jerrold L. Sobel On November 12, 2013 @ 12:36 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 6 Comments

As we approach the 4th month and 14th meeting between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA), the latest round of U.S. pressured negotiations seem hopelessly deadlocked. What else is new?

Secretary of State Kerry arrived in Jerusalem this week to try and resuscitate the perpetually moribund peace talks between Israel and the PLO. According to an article in the Jerusalem Post, Israeli officials claim both sides are cognizant a gap between them is so great that only an interim deal can be made in the 9-month time frame mandated by the Obama Administration.

Not wasting a moment, PLO secretary general, Yasser Abed Rabbo, immediately quashed the report and rejected it out of hand, stating it was “baseless.”….“The Palestinian leadership rejects any interim agreements…. We also reject the idea of establishing a Palestinian state with temporary borders.” As if not emphatic enough, he went on to describe the Israeli position as: “the worst in 20 years.”

PA Foreign Minister Riad Malki concurred, reaffirming as non-negotiable the demand for a two-state solution based upon the pre-1967 lines “where Palestine and Israel would live next to each other in security and peace.” Wouldn’t that be nice?

In accordance, PLO Executive Committee member Wasel Abu Yusef further dispelled the aura of secret negotiations by stating, if they didn’t get their way, “The Palestinians won’t be able to continue with them. All indications show that the talks are headed toward failure.” For reasons other than his, I couldn’t agree with him more.

Lost in all the hyperbole of deceptive surface issues such as “settlements,” Jerusalem, the right of return, pre-67 borders, and the creation of a Palestinian state itself, is a failure to recognize these issues are outward symptoms of the struggle, not its essence. The foundation, the least common denominator of this enmity is the expansionist nature of Islam, a political movement ensconced in a religion.

More than any other reason, these innumerable talks have been nothing but a game of ring around the rosy and Jew hatred, codified within the Qur’an and Hadith, the foundational scriptures of Islam. To the faithful, the mere existence of a sovereign Jewish state in their midst is a violation of dar-al-Islam (all those lands in which a Muslim sets foot in becomes the possession of Islam. Non-Muslims may live there but only upon Muslim sufferance). This is the substantive point of departure of Arab bellicosity long before 1948 and to this very day is the one underlying issue which renders all others moot.

From the past to the present, from Mohammad, to the Caliphate dynasties, onward to today’s terrorists wreaking havoc upon the world. Expansive Islam is driven by the venerated Qur’an, one-third of which is devoted to the denigration of Jews. The quotes in the Hadith (the putative sayings of Muhammad or a report about something he did) are no less replete with Jewish invective. These laws divide the world theologically into those who who accept Islam as a divine religion and those that do not.

Those who do not are called dhimmis (conquered people that do not convert to Islam but are protected as long as they pay an exorbitant poll tax, the jizya). They are forced to accept a recognizable and humiliating second class existence under strict Islamic suzerainty. This has been the fate of all native populations vanquished by Muslim hordes throughout history and would surely be that of Jews in Israel today if they absurdly succumb to the pressures of a land for peace pipe dream where recalcitrant terrorist groups over a period of time would certainly finish off whatever was left of Israel.

Unfortunately, hitherto, the West either fails to recognize or doesn’t have the moxie to confront the self-evident theological nature of the Middle East dispute, finding it much easier to admonish Israel for not acquiescing to the preposterous demands made upon her. To those dismissive of this analysis, deeming it Islamophobic, I encourage you not to kill the messenger. Instead google an English translation of the Qur’an, type in “Jews” or “children of Israel,” do some objective scholarship, and make your own judgment as to whether this clash is fueled by temporal dictates or by theological, systemic, Jew hatred.

In his own words, Israel’s “partner for peace,” Mahmoud Abbas in a 2007 speech commemorating the the 42nd anniversary of the founding of his Fatah party quoted directly from Sura 5:64 of the Qur’an:

“And the Jews say, the hand of Allah is chained. Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. ….We have cast among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. Every time they kindled the fire of war [against you], Allah extinguished it. And they strive throughout the land [causing] corruption, and Allah does not like corrupters.”

He went on to say: “We should put our internal fighting aside and raise our rifles only against the Israeli occupation.” Yet with a straight face and the spontaneity of a chameleon he adeptly can look the gullible right in the eye as he did in 2010 at a White House meeting in which he proclaimed to President Obama: “I say in front of you, Mr. President, that we have nothing to do with incitement against Israel, and we’re not doing that.” Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Human Rights and co-chairman of the Bi-Partisan Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism, would beg to differ.

Following a meeting on Capital Hill on January 26, 2012, he and others stated that Palestinian text books at grade levels 1-12 are replete with lessons of intolerance and hatred toward Jews and Israel.

As if more evidence of his ill intentions are needed, Abbas, the “moderate”at a meeting in Cairo this past July 29th reiterated: “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli, civilian or soldier on our lands.” “Final resolution.” How fitting he would use that term. With his demand for a (Judenrein) Jew-free country, this revered Palestinian statesman joins the majority of Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia, where Jews, especially those from Israel are not permitted to set foot.

If this were a secular affray over matters such as those mentioned earlier or any other non-religious contention it could have been settled years ago. But except to the willfully blind, the overwhelming evidence validates theocratic Jewish hatred as its underpinning. If not for its religious nature why would the entire Islamic world be so vehement in not recognizing Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people?

In response to my essays and presentations, I’m often asked my opinion on how this struggle might ultimately be resolved. The options I present are often unacceptable to some and impracticable to others.

One thing for certain, based upon the aforementioned it won’t get done by the historically defunct “land for peace” paradigm. If that were possible it would have been accomplished at Camp David in 2000 when Arafat turned down 97% of Judea/Samaria (West Bank), all of Gaza, a capital in Jerusalem, a right of return, and a $30 billion compensation fund for refugees.

It was also spurned 5 years later by the Palestinians following Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza resultant in two subsequent wars and terrorism unabated till this very day.

Once again it was spurned in 2006 when then Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert offered Abbas joint sovereignty of Jerusalem and a partial return of refugees. None of these gestures of peace, including Israel’s abandonment of Southern Lebanon, were met with reciprocation. History and current events bare witness, conflicts exist wherever predominant Muslim states adjoin non-Islamic entities and this certainly is no different. So what are the options? Few and none appealing:

All out war; acquiescence; the eventual dismemberment of the Jewish character of Israel; the status quo; an Islamic Reformation.

The one that could end the Israeli/Palestinian crisis and 90% of the conflicts around the world will most likely never happen, an Islamic Reformation. Such a movement would entail a renouncement of the political, imperialist dogma which up to this point has characterized Islam from the outset. It would also necessitate purging the hectoring and codified hatred of Jews and others so abundant within Islamic scriptures. In addition, Muslims would have to renounce the messianic, forced proselytization and conversion of the Kafir (“infidels” not wishing to convert to Islam). Anything short of this guarantees conflict not only between Israel and the Palestinians but between Islam and nations and individuals throughout the world that wish to maintain their own customs and way of life.

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