Mitchell Bard has a very good article about the roots of the Palestinian conflict with Israel. "It's the religion, stupid," he says. But he is careful to note that it is not Islam itself that rejects Israel; rather, given the Abraham Accords, it is clear that there are specific radical Islamic forces, such as Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, that drive a fanatical religious opposition to Israel that is not necessarily shared by all Muslims or even all Palestinians.
A quote:
I was thinking about the libel comparing Israel to Afrikaner South Africa, and it occurred to me that the rebuttals, including mine, leave out a central argument. In South Africa, Afrikaners considered the country theirs—that blacks were inferior, and that they should rule over them. By contrast, Israelis acknowledge Palestinian claims to part of the land, do not consider them inferior and do not want to be their masters. It is actually the Palestinians who believe that the land belongs to them, that they are superior to Jews, and that they should control the lives of Jews.
To be more accurate, it is not all Palestinians, but Islamists such as Hamas and Palestine Islamic Jihad.
...
Let me be clear. The war is not between Islam and Judaism or Islam and Israel. The proof is that Muslim nations have made peace with Israel. This is not a contradiction because those countries—Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates—are the least fundamentalist and their leaders also fear Islamists. The most vocal opponents of peace with the Jews are the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran.
...
The conflict with the Palestinians cannot be resolved so long as their leaders are driven by a religious rather than a political agenda. You cannot reach compromises with people who believe that Allah has given them marching orders to reconstitute the Islamic empire and, ideally, expand it throughout the world.
This week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
