The nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict is religious.


The nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict is religious.By Gabriel Ben-Tasgal

16.09.11 | 17:04. Filed under Islamic terrorism
  • enviar a un amigo
  • Imprimir contenido

The nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict is religious. By Gabriel Ben-Tasgal, a renowned political analyst, journalist and director of public diplomacy program Hasheni Hatzair (The Face of Truth).

Gabriel Ben-Tasgal

In his book “Faith and Power”, the British Orientalist Bernard Lewis argues that Islam always played a key role in the political processes of the area. However, ill-informed politicians and journalists sin to diagnose and to simplify the nature of conflict from a perspective “territorial” when it comes to a confrontation purely “religious.” When cataloging the conflict using a prism materialistic get, inevitably, a constant analytical failure.

The Aksa Intifada had begun El-end of September 2000. A few weeks later, I had the opportunity to interview for Portuguese TV Javier Solana, High Representative for the then EU foreign policy who, when asked about Palestinian suicide terrorism, we responded convinced that “we condemn the terrorism and At the same time, ask the causes that led the Palestinians to choose that path, “implying clearly that the” occupation “had caused such a phenomenon. It was the only European thought in this way, the EU representative Miguel Angel Moratinos, took a position almost identical to that of Solana. Even today we see people and people who analyze the phenomenon of suicide in this primitive rod. A few months later, Islamic suicide bombers crashed into the Twin Towers and the Islamist phenomenon spread to dozens of countries where the “occupation” had not been present. Bombs in Iraq, in England or Madrid.Something bad happened then with the diagnosis of Javier Solana and Miguel Angel Moratinos.

“There is no Islamic terrorism, there is simply a terrorist. Terrorism acts as a response to the fact that the peace process forward,” said the winner Pedro Brieger Argentine analyst in a conference in Islamic Studies Center of Buenos Aires . in 1997. Nonsense. Another reporter, this time the Spanish Xavier Mas de Xaxas (La Vanguardia, 04/09/11), emulated the analytical weakness Brieger, proclaiming that “Atta’s cell phone (the Twin Towers terrorist) and his companions was the caliphate universal or annihilation of the U.S. – as alluded to the White House – but the cause of Palestine and U.S. support for Israel. ”

What they have in common Solana 2000, Brieger, 1997 (and today of course) and Xaxas Over 2011? The three underestimate the influence of Islamic values ​​in assessing the reality of the Middle East, contradicting explained in dozens of books by Bernard Lewis. Since Israel occupied the Palestinian Islamist terrorism is (Solana), as there is no peace process is Islamist terrorism (Brieger and would step would blame everything on Israel) and finally, the attacks on the Twin Towers are the fault Israel (assert the ridiculous Over Xaxas). Everyone blames Israel that is causing all the troubles of the world for his unjust “occupation.”

Probably, these journalists or politicians are influenced by the “historical materialism” to explaining the Middle East. For them, the conflicts are due to a dispute over land, wealth or property. In a debate aired during the Lebanon War II (2006) by the Uruguayan government channel, the deputy White Alem Garcia reached the end justify materialistic Israeli-Palestinian conflict as “a dispute over oil.” Another claim preposterous. For these analysts, journalists or politicians, the fundamental conflict in the region is the Palestinian-Israeli, being that this is classified as being “territorial”.

You will recognize by his way of speaking. In his speech and speak at length to blame the “occupation”. Everything is explained by the occupation. Making a parallel with the failed European imperialism in Africa, assume that the Jewish people illegally occupied land that belonged to him not being the solution to the conflict will be implemented when carrying out a decolonization. No empirical data will convince them otherwise, “the conflict is Israeli occupation” does not ring. The main problem with his thesis is that we simply can not explain absolutely nothing that has happened in the Middle East in the last century.

If the conflict is territorial Why 8000 Hamas fired rockets into Israel after the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, when Israel no longer occupied Gaza?, Why Hezbollah attacks on Israel repeatedly if the government of Ehud Barak ordered Israeli army’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000 to the line recognized internationally by the UN? Why the PLO was created in 1964 while the territories were “occupied” in 1967? Why Arabs massacred Jews in the riots of 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936-1939 if there was no “occupation”?

Above all, it’s worth asking the question of what happened and why the conflict continues if we already know the parameters of the solution “territorial” of it? If you know the territorial lines, and yet the conflict continues and no sign of abating, then it is evident that the conflict is not primarily territorial.
In mid 2008, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert Mahmoud Abbas gave him a map which clearly drew the boundaries of a Palestinian state to be created. In a forum against the peace conference “Geneva Initiative” (19 September 2010), the same Olmert said it had agreed with Abbas, even the partition of Jerusalem.

“Olmert said it had reached an agreement with the Palestinians on most issues, including the partition of Jerusalem and the streets would remain under the control of each state. Accurate maps of the entire proposal had been delivered, Olmert explained; September 13, 2008. “Abbas, like Yasser Arafat at Camp David (2000), rejected Olmert’s offer to not answer. Like Arafat, Abbas was unwilling to declare the end of the conflict to accept the map for a Palestinian state negotiated.

Olmert proposed that Israel annex the Jewish settlement blocs inhabited by 80% of the settlers (in the map in blue). In return, Israel would transfer their own territory in a proportion close to 1×1 (on the map in red). From Gaza to Judea (West Bank), the Palestinians would go on a road “safe” Israel’s sovereign territory but could only move the Palestinian cars. Jerusalem would be divided according to the guidelines of Bill Clinton.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said in his speech at Bar Ilan University that “Jerusalem will never be divided.” Let up to the reader whether in response to a full and final agreement with the Palestinians, an understanding that meets the other requirements of Netanyahu, especially those related to homeland security, failing such agreement completed by the division or unit of Jerusalem.

The Olmert-Abbas map reveals a very possible territorial solution to the conflict. Annexation of the blocks of Jewish settlements, compensation and deliveries for the Palestinians Israeli land, highway linking the two Palestinian territories and a partition of Jerusalem under the guidance of Bill Clinton. To highlight the importance of this proposal is sufficient to note that the current Netanyahu advisor for issues of Palestinian state lines to form, Dany Tirza, also worked with Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni, being that the former Israeli prime minister offered 93.2% West Bank to the Palestinian state while 92.7% offered Livni.

We know the parameters of the territorial solution. However, it is a minor problem and even less relevant given that the conflict is not territorial. If Israel withdraws unilaterally morning until the 1967 line will get peace? Of course not, because the conflict is not territorial. The conflict has a territorial aspect which one possible outcome is known. The land is secondary.

Many of us like to believe that the conflict is territorial. Water, land, gas … are divisible goods.We trust that such distribution would bring us closer to peace. It is worth remembering that the nature of the conflict imposed by the aggressor and not the victim. The Israelis, who are attacked, they can consider that the conflict is territorial but they are not the aggressors, so they do not impose the nature of conflict.

The nature of the Arab-Israeli Palestinian “religious” because they impose radical Islam. It’s time to say loud and clear.
These two towns, one ancient as the Jewish people and a recent one as is the Palestinian people, who claim to have rights over the same territories.
The Jews, whose religion prevails over the life land rights claim to possess the whole of Israel, including what is now known as the West Bank.
The biblical texts relate to the life of the Jewish people in every inch of this land.
The patriarchs of Israel are buried in the land purchased by the patriarch Abraham in Hebron.The tomb of the matriarch Rachel is located between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
The city of Jericho was conquered by Joseph and his trumpet after the exodus from Egypt. The Jews regard Judea and Samaria as an unquestioned part of their national territory. The Palestinians also believe that all the land of Israel belongs to them.
Moreover, the Palestinians and their cronies have developed a strong policy of “cleptohistoria” planned and systematic theft of Jewish history to invent the Palestinians have prior rights of the Jews.
“Palestinians are descendants of the Philistines and Canaanites,” “Jesus was Palestinian,” “Jews are descendants of the Khazars” and other atrocities that are often repeated and exposed even by some teachers university in Latin America.

When two people claim to have rights over the same territories for a solution to the conflict goes through the elimination of the rights of others. The anti-Semites in the world, whether Muslim or Christian, defend the destruction of Jewish law. A tiny minority of Israelis refuse to grant rights to Palestinians. For the overwhelming majority of decent human beings, the solutions of type “Same Game Zero” are unacceptable.

A conflict like the Arab-Israeli Palestinian requires that both parties recognize the rights of others, to assume that both also have rights and, therefore, be willing to share that right. When an analyst starts to ask some person whose rights in the Middle East? … Then you begin to understand the nature of the conflict.
When conflict happens to look like a fight over a mutual recognition, the analyst inevitably falls on religious grounds that support and guide Muslim leaders, even if they are classified by the West as “moderates.”

There has not been a territorial solution and that Palestinian leaders are not willing to recognize Israel, to put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (as demanded by Ehud Barak in 2000) or to accept the Jewishness of the state of Israel (as demanded by Netanyahu Bar Ilan). The rejection is religious.

Mahmoud Abbas is well aware of the territorial settlement of the conflict. Abbas can not, you may want to recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. Mahmoud Abbas, Nabil Shaat your advisor or Khaled Mashaal of Hamas … all agree that “never recognize the Jewishness of the state of Israel.” If Abbas recognizes Israel Jewry lost power at the hands of Hamas and will be remembered in history as a “traitor” to the Palestinian cause. Yasser Arafat preferred to be remembered as “Saladin” and slipped out of their obligations when signing a final agreement with Israel at Camp David (2000). Abbas wants to negotiate then try to get a state unilaterally under the umbrella automatically gives most Arab-Islamic non-aligned in the UN General Assembly
Why Abbas or Hamas can not recognize Israel as a Jewish state? For religious reasons, simply.

Mordechai Keidar Dr University Bar Ilan explains in his article “They do not want, can not” that the Palestinians would not accept Israel as a Jewish state for five reasons:

1 – According to Islam, the Jewish religion has been annulled in this world to the birth of Christianity, and Christianity has also been set aside at birth of Islam.
Islam does not come into the world to live on an equal footing with other religions but came to replace them. Therefore, the Islamist question how can you say that there is a holy land for Jews when the religion has been canceled?
In other words, Judaism and Christianity are false religions;

2 – Judaism, the way that is seen by the Muslim community is a religion and not an ethnic or national level.
For Islam, this is the biggest lie of Zionism. Zionism created a kind of Jewish people. How can you recognize a state and the country’s “Jewish people there anyway?”;

3 – Palestinian Islamic holy land is in two ways: The first act for his holiness was the conquest in the days of Caliph Omar El-Hatipha in the 30’s the seventh century.

From this point of view, is part of the Palestinian territories that were in the past under the rule of Islam as Spain, Sicily and part of the Balkans, and therefore the land should return to Islam (a term known as Dar el- Islam).

The second act of holiness came when the caliph Omar El-Hatipha said that Palestine, from the sea to the Jordan, is Wakaf Al-Islam, part of the Islamic sanctity, so that belongs to all Muslims for all eternity .
How dare the Jews are a religion are illegitimate and not an ethnic group, demanding that Muslims recognize the conquest of Palestine is holy only to Muslims?;

4 – The fear is that after the Islamic conquest of Palestine in 1948 and Jerusalem in 1967, the Jews re-build the temple in Jerusalem and, therefore, religion becomes relevant again.

Such a situation would question Islam, as we have seen, came into the world to replace Judaism, 5 – Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state represents the Arabs say they were defeated in the 1948 war and in all other defeats that followed. A recognition of this type is too much for the honor of the Arab people.

For Islamists, Jews and Christians are dhimmi (Arabic al-dhimma). This is second-class citizens (dhimmi) who will support them until they can be converted to the one true religion: Islam.

According to this definition of dhimmi, an outside observer could make the mistake of assuming that it is a religious issue between radical Muslims and Jews. The answer is a resounding no. Islam has a problem with the dhimmi who came to the Holy Land to defile Islam as in pre Mohammedan (yahilya), inserting values ​​alien to Muslim culture. The dhimmi is not only the Jewish … is also a Christian. The Jews in the Middle East are covered by one of the strongest armies in the world (Tzhal).

Instead, Christians are harassed, persecuted, killed and humiliated in Egypt (Copts), Iraq (hundreds of attacks on churches), Pakistan (blasphemy law), Algeria (mandatory for young Christian weddings), or Lebanon, in where thousands of Maronites prefer to escape to avoid ending up living under the yoke Shiite or Sunni.

No need to travel so far, in the “Christian” city of Bethlehem live only a 10 to 15% of the population that is “Christian” because the rest has gone to live in the United States, Chile, Australia and Brazil. The mayor of the city is a Christian to be polite but the majority are Muslims and Christians feel pressure to be religious dhimmi.

By entering Nazareth, a graffiti painted on one wall of the Church of the Annunciation reminds us “all Muslims are dhimmi very soon.” The media have reported sporadically the flight of Christians from the Gaza Strip, who requested the assistance of the Israeli military authorities to enter Israeli territory running from the Islamists who rule Gaza.

Some 80 million Christians living in the Middle East less than 100 years ago. Today it is estimated that the figure is only 11 million. As Islamists kill and persecute Christians for being dhimmi, some people still believe that the problem is territorial and apply only to the Jews and the Jew among countries, Israel.

We observe the phenomenon of rising European speakers who understand that they who are mired in a serious confrontation between Islamists living in the heart of Europe who do not know and refuse to accept the values ​​of democratic Europe and daughter of the Judeo-Christian culture. We also note characters who remain deeply confused, as the architects of the “Alliance of Civilizations” that the Islamist Erdogan see an icon of coexistence between cultures.

In September 2006, Pope Benedict XVI recalled at the University of Regensburg in Germany, a dialogue between the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, perhaps in the winter quarters of 1391 in Ankara, and an educated Persian on Christianity and Islam , and the truth of both. In this dialogue, questioned the legality of imposing a jihad by the sword as Islam does today. Benedict XVI was harshly criticized in countries such as Pakistan, Morocco, Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt, Iraq, where it rained on the Vatican criticism and demands for “personal apologies”.

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya then, the terrorist movement Hamas condemned the Pope’s speech and urged the Pope to “stop” aggression against Islam.
In Turkey, the director of the Turkish Department of Religious Affairs, Ali Bardakoglu, said the Pope’s words “reflect the hatred in his heart (…) Their statements are full of bitterness.”
Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, one of the leading Shiite clerics of Iran, said the Pope’s statement “is proof of their ignorance of the tolerant Islamic religion. ”
Lebanese Shiite cleric Mohammad Hussein Fadallah, accused Benedict of succumbing to the propaganda of the enemies of Iceland and urged him to apologize personally and not through the channels of the Vatican.

While some protesters, some “acting”. Five Christian churches were attacked in the Palestinian territories, days after the pope’s comments. A group of armed men opened fire on the oldest Greek Orthodox church in Gaza, causing no casualties. A man who identified himself as the spokesman of the “Islamic Swords of Probity” claimed the attack in a call.
The building had been attacked with a grenade and three improvised explosive device. Fired because of the Pope’s comments demanding an apology.

An Iraqi armed group, al-Mujahedeen Jaiech threatened in a statement threatening Rome and the Vatican, in response to Pope’s comments on Islam. In Iraq, about 500 protesters burned the Pope’s image in a demonstration in Basra (southern Iraq) and set fire to American and German flags to protest against the statements of Benedict XVI on Islam. A few days later, two bombs exploded at churches in Iraq, killing 92 Christians.

In other words, it’s time defending Christians living in the Islamic Middle East. In Europe, meanwhile, Christians show panic. The European response is late and they did not understand the nature of religious conflict that confronted Europe. It should not surprise then multiplying the radical Christian or neo-Nazi demonstrations like the one reason the attacks against the government and the Labor Party camp in Norway in July 2011.

Radical Islam is shown to be at war with Christians in the Middle East to the disturbing passivity of Christians worldwide. Radical Islam is constantly being at war declared against the Jewish state, Israel. Can radical Islam achieve peace with Christians and Jews? The answer is simple: NO.

For radical Islam there is no peace possible between a Muslim and a dhimmi. Peace is possible only between Muslims and is known as “Suljo” or forgiveness. Between a Muslim and a dhimmi can establish a “hudna” (truce) as the one signed by Muhammad with the tribe of Quraysh in Mecca doors (Treaty of “Hudaybiyah” the year 628). Muhammad signed a truce for ten years but broke it to justify their deception third year as this is “good for Islam.” A “hudna” established with a non-Muslim enemy is limited to 10 years if they are Muslims who are in a position of weakness. A truce can be broken if Muslims feel they have enough strength to overcome. In 1994, Yasser Arafat clearly stated before a crowd of Muslims in Johannesburg that “he had signed a hudna with Israel (Oslo) as it had before the Prophet (Muhammad).” In January 2004, Hamas leader Abdel Aziz-al Rantissi offered a 10-year hudna if Israel retreats to the lines of June 5, 1967 and if it recognizes the right of return for Palestinian refugees.However, “the acceptance of hudna should not be interpreted as recognition of the state of Israel, which never happen.”

The Judeo-Christian concept of “peace” has nothing to do with Islamic sink. In fact, Israel has a “peace” with Egypt nor with Jordan. Israel signed a peace agreement is not nothing but a very precious “hudna” that has lasted a long time, much more than the ten-year period established by Mohammed in Hudaybiyah. The Egyptians do not love Israel, we have seen in the attack and burning of the Embassy of Israel (September 2011) but also in thousands of samples of Judeophobia, demonization and denial of the Holocaust published in the media of that country.Jordanian citizens are not “peace” with the Jews of Israel.

In many cases, a “hudna” is better than “nothing.” The Israelis would accept a Palestinian state living beside him. The Israelis could sign an agreement with all neighboring Arab countries providing land for …. and yet would still be talking about a “hudna” as the aggressor, the Muslim countries do not accept the signature of something else other than a “hudna” with the Jewish dhimmis. As such, Israel must maintain an unwavering will, military power, alliances with world powers, a massive economic power and a forceful defense of democratic values ​​that radical Muslims do not agree to break the “sink”. How long? Until that radical Islam is overcome and defeated by a moderate version of that religion.

In other words, proponents of Judeo Christian values ​​should be less confused and more forcefully advocate for those who demand a reform in Islam to be the moderate set agenda in the Middle East.

The Israeli-Palestinian Arab conflict is religious in nature. That if the attitude of many governments around the world and public opinion in several countries, especially Europeans, are part of an attitude towards the state of Israel strongly influenced by resentment and pre Judeophobe concepts of nature. But the latter is an issue to be addressed in another article.

Gabriel Ben-Tasgal


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s