2003 Palestinian Authority Textbook Calls for Jihad and Martyrdom

[drdon326]

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR2203

By 2003, however, a newly-printed textbook produced by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Education titled "Islamic Culture," intended for students in the 11th grade, shows a return to incitement for Jihad and martyrdom. <2> The following are excerpts from the textbook:

snip

Page 208): "Islam is Allah's religion for all human beings. It should be proclaimed and invite to join it wisely and through appropriate preaching and friendly discussions. However, such methods may encounter resistance and the preachers may be prevented from accomplishing their duty… then, Jihad and the use of physical force against the enemies become inevitable…


"Jihad is an Islamic term that equates to the term war in other nations. The difference is that Jihad has noble goals and lofty aims, and is carried out only for the sake of Allah and for His glory… wars by other nations are mainly waged because of wickedness, aggression, love of domination, expanding influence, looting properties, murder, and the fulfillment of ambitions and desires, such as the war that the Western countries waged to exploit Islamic countries for imperialistic purposes, to control their Muslim citizens and to rob their resources and richness…"

snip

"Abandoning Islam is a crime that warrants a severe punishment… :

a."Urging to recant immediately…
b."Warning him of the implications of his persistence in abandoning Islam, namely warning him that he will be executed.
c."Execute the sinner if he persists in abandon Islam…"

.....................................................................

great read on a winters nite.

[leftyandproud]

1. no responses..

says a lot..

Are we really too afraid to condemn this?
I'll condemn it...and I condemn this unofficial war between both sides, but if one side MUST win, I hope its the democratic state of Israel, rather than these psychos.

ok...I'm not pro-Palestine/PLO/Arafat.
not PC apparently...

Sue me.

[lefty_mcduff]

2. Glad the 'grown-ups' are in charge.

While this kind of hatred and extremism festers, there will never be any peace. Anywhere.

[Darranar]

3. This is incitement to racism and killing...

I am against this and I condemn it.

[Forkboy]

4. Dumbasses

Yeah,this will help their cause :eyes:

[The Magistrate]

5. Interesting, Doctor

Amost three hours have passed without a connection being put up to the obligatory Guardian piece on the organization that translates this stuff. Perhaps there may be, instead, an acknowledgement of the substance.

It is hard to think of any contextual elements that might legitimize these effusions, unless they were to be described as counterpoint giving the irreligious and incorrect view in some exercise in debate. These seem to me a mere softened version of things that can be readily read at length in Islamicist publications. The idea that war practiced by Muslims is done for different reasons and in different spirit than war practiced by others is risible: the less said about the injunction to prosetylize, the better for my blood pressure....

[Jack Rabbit]

6. There are some discomforting passages quoted here

I wouldn't want ot judge the entire testbook without seeing it, but some of these excerpts are far too provincial for my tastes.

[drdon326]

21. "discomforting"??

A textbook of propaganda advocating religious murder
and you call it "discomforting" ??

:eyes:

[Jack Rabbit]

23. I'm sorry, Doctor, if my penchant for understatement discomforts you

However, what I see are a few short, selected passages from a work in excess of 300 pages; moreover, these passages were selected by a source, MEMRI, with its own reputation for bias. There is nothing about the context of which the passages were taken. That information is important to me in determining a final judgment.

This is disburbing, especially given the emotional tinderbox that is exists in Israel and Palestine at the moment. In no way do I approve of religious intolerance or the imposition of religion on those who do not follow its tenets.

[bluesoul]

24. If one takes quotes

from the Bible or Torah out of context you can also get some pretty creepy stuff out... They do not represent the more then billion Muslim population worldwide or the views of most Palestinians, just as those that murdered Rabin didn't represent Israelis or Jews in general...

[Paschall]

29. A note on context for you, Jack

Nobody has mentioned that the footnote on this piece indicates the book was approved by the Jordanian Ministry of Education. Jordan and Israel have good relations and a long-standing peace agreement. King Abdullah II, Ariel Sharon, and Shrub met in Jordan last June.

I wonder...

[durutti]

7. Dubious Claims

First of all, the idea that Palestinian textbooks incite students to terrorism is largely myth.

A research report commissioned by the U.S. Congress found that in fact, Palestinian textbooks did no such thing. You can read it online here: http://www.nad-plo.org/textbooks/analys_eval_newpal_curric.pdf

A GWU prof came to a similar conclusion in this research paper: http://www.geocities.com/nathanbrown1/Adam_Institute_Palestinian_textbooks.htm

Second, MEMRI is a pro-Israel think tank, and not particularly credible. They've been wrong about a great many things. I think it's absurd that What Really Happened? is banned, but MEMRI (and AIPAC and the like) are not.

This leads me to believe that these passages are likely quoted out of context. Let's examine:

By 2003, however, a newly-printed textbook produced by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Education titled "Islamic Culture," intended for students in the 11th grade, shows a return to incitement for Jihad and martyrdom. <2> The following are excerpts from the textbook:

So this textbook is for a class on Islamic culture. The passages could be read as simply describing traditional Islamic practices, rather than advocating them.

Page 208): "Islam is Allah's religion for all human beings. It should be proclaimed and invite to join it wisely and through appropriate preaching and friendly discussions. However, such methods may encounter resistance and the preachers may be prevented from accomplishing their duty… then, Jihad and the use of physical force against the enemies become inevitable…

Note the elipses, which could be (and often are) used to obscure crucial clarifying information. Furthermore, the "resistance" encountered may refer not just to a lack of interest in Islam, but to actual repression of believers in Islam.

Jihad is an Islamic term that equates to the term war in other nations. The difference is that Jihad has noble goals and lofty aims, and is carried out only for the sake of Allah and for His glory… wars by other nations are mainly waged because of wickedness, aggression, love of domination, expanding influence, looting properties, murder, and the fulfillment of ambitions and desires, such as the war that the Western countries waged to exploit Islamic countries for imperialistic purposes, to control their Muslim citizens and to rob their resources and richness…"

More elipses. Also, jihad doesn't refer exclusively to war. For most Muslims, it is merely an internal struggle.

"Abandoning Islam is a crime that warrants a severe punishment… :

a."Urging to recant immediately…
b."Warning him of the implications of his persistence in abandoning Islam, namely warning him that he will be executed.
c."Execute the sinner if he persists in abandon Islam…"

This is what's been legally proscribed in Islamic states based on a strict reading of Islamic law. However, the textbook could merely be describing such systems, rather than advocating them. They're certainly not being advocated by the PLO, which has always been secularist.

[bemildred]

9. That one sentence is driving me nuts:

"Jihad is an Islamic term that equates to the term
war in other nations."

This is a translation from Arabic, right? So what does
that say in Arabic? "War is an Islamic term that equates
to the term war in other nations." Every way I try to fix
it, it stays broken.

Should "Islamic" be "Arabic"? Or should "nations" be "languages",
or maybe "religions", but then that would not work, because one
term would not equate to another in a religion, but rather in a
language.

Use of quotes to clarify use/mention distinctions would be a big
help too.

[The Magistrate]

10. There Is Doubtless Another Term For The Venture, Sir

There might even have been a foreign term. Jihad is closer to crusade in one sense, but how many wars in Christendom are prosecuted without the vocabulary of crusade? There is certainly a sense of inner struggle to the word, but again, such metaphoric usage of "war" is common to all cultures. There is nothing uniquely deep about the word, nor that obliges any to assume all use of it indicates the spiritual meaning. It gained its first wide currency in the crusade and conquer sense.

[bemildred]

19. Crusade seems better in semantic terms,

from what I gather, since the goal is evangelical.

I'm just having trouble taking it seriously,
as a textbook, as a translation, or both.

The content seems consistent with basic Islamic fundy
doctrine, but Mr. Durruti's questions about context seem
well founded and the translation seems questionable as to
their grasp of Arabic, English or both, not that I claim any
expertise in Arabic.

While I would expect the PNA to be busy brainwashing their
youth at this point, I would not expect them to be recruiting
for Hamas of Islamic Jihad, also.

I see you got your Guardian post. :-)

[Gimel]

25. About Jihad

Here's a site that I've had bookmarked. It reveals some interesting facts:

The word Jihad stems from the Arabic root word J-H-D, which means "strive." Other words derived from this root include "effort," "labor," and "fatigue." Essentially Jihad is an effort to practice religion in the face of oppression and persecution. The effort may come in fighting the evil in your own heart, or in standing up to a dictator. Military effort is included as an option, but as a last resort and not "to spread Islam by the sword" as the stereotype would have you believe.

The Qur'an describes Jihad as a system of checks and balances, as a way that Allah set up to "check one people by means of another." When one person or group transgresses their limits and violates the rights of others, Muslims have the right and the duty to "check" them and bring them back into line. There are several verses of the Qur'an that describe jihad in this manner.

http://islam.about.com/library/weekly/aa022201a.htm

[bemildred]

27. Thank you.

I had done a certain amount of reading on those meanings
before posting. I have discussed it with friends of Muslim
background a few times, also. Generally they told me it means
"work". The word seems to have a variety of uses, which seems
to be a common situation with Arabic words.

What does seem clear is that it doesn't mean in any categorical
sense "holy war", but something more like struggle in the faith,
and this is commonly perverted by the islamic nutballs to include
their own activities. It also seems clear that it is not entirely
a settled matter among Muslims, and given that there are a billion
of so of them, there is nothing surprising in that. The Islamic
faith seems almost as fragmented as the Christian one.

I was mainly stuck on the crappy writing in the original and/or the
crappy translation. I assume one of a translator's tasks is to
convey the sense of the original, and in this case I saw no sense
to it. That could be because it made no sense in the first place,
or because the translator botched it, I cannot tell.

[GabysPoppy]

11. Sorry, this statement alone

"Second, MEMRI is a pro-Israel think tank, and not particularly credible."

shows me you have no idea what you are speaking of.

[Darranar]

13. Why?

[GabysPoppy]

14. Do some of your own research about MEMRI

then try to equate it with an Israeli think tank.

[Darranar]

15. He didn't say Israeli, he said pro-Israel...

There's a difference.

[Aidoneus]

16. seeing as how it's made up of former Israeli gov't/officials

"Israeli" would also be accurate.

[Darranar]

18. You're right...

according to this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html

[rini]

30. You are afraid to acknowledge

the message so you finagle ways to discredit the messanger.

[Paschall]

35. Quoting the Guardian UK...

...can hardly be called "finagling."

Developing knowledge about media sources and a critical eye with regard to purveyors of information is actually a field of academic study known as media literacy. It's usually supported by people who are pro-liberal democracy.

[JohnLocke]

48. The Person who Wrote this Article is a Moron

The so-called "journalist," Brian Whitaker, writes:

"Despite these high-minded statements, several things make me uneasy whenever I'm asked to look at a story circulated by Memri. First of all, it's a rather mysterious organisation. Its website does not give the names of any people to contact, not even an office address."

Okayy...

From MEMRI's website:

"MEMRI's headquarters is located in Washington, DC, with branch offices in Berlin, London, and Jerusalem..."

[Darranar]

49. That's an address?

[GabysPoppy]

50. You can send your contributions here

MEMRI
P.O. Box 27837
Washington, DC 20038-7837
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email to: [e-mail]


I assume that's why you need the address

[Violet_Crumble]

56. Try reading the thread yr posting in...

No-one in this thread needed the address, which you would have known if you'd bothered reading and understanding the thread. When a business or an organisation doesn't have a street address and can only be reached through a PO Box, it can be a bit shonky and suspicious. To pretend that a PO Box or an email addy is an address is pretty stupid, and I yet again am reminded of why those Nigerian bank-account scammers find so many stupid and gullible people to fleece :)

Violet...

[GabysPoppy]

60. How about telling Skinner yourself

"That he has a shonky and suspicious business or an organisation."

You might also want to tell him this at the same time.

"To pretend that a PO Box or an email addy is an address is pretty stupid"



WE HAVE A NEW ADDRESS!
Democratic Underground, LLC
P.O. Box 53350
Washington, DC 20009

[Violet_Crumble]

62. Huh? Why should I?

DU has a street address, as opposed to only having a mailing address. Like the employer I work for who also has a street address, there's no secret about there being a street address, though you won't find it on most correspondence or the website itself. A journalist would take all of five seconds to track down the street address of DU and my employer, and wouldn't be describing either as shady. If you can't tell the difference between an organisation having both street and mailing addresses, and an organisation only having a mailing address, then I've got some Nigerian conmen who'd love to fleece you ;)


Violet...

[Lithos]

63. Their address is not a secret

Middle East Media & Research Institute Inc,
[phone],
1815 H St NW,
Washington, DC 20006

[Violet_Crumble]

64. Is it on their website?

That's what the Guardian article was saying.


I've just been over at their website having a look for the address and couldn't see anything. Where did you find their address?

Violet...

[Lithos]

65. That is actually irrelevent

Many small companies and groups frequently do not put specific contact information up on their websites. Many others only put up their sales contact information (for sales contact...), but even that is usually generic enough (sales@abc_corp.com).

They often do this to mask how small they are in the first place. Other times it is to limit their exposure to outside sales (and for the case of technical companies, recruiters).

So not putting up their address and direct contact information just reinforces the fact that Memri is a small organization. As the Guardian reporter adequately demonstrated, there is still enough transparency to easily lift the veil to learn more about the structure and particulars if desired. In my case it took me about 30 seconds to find the address.

L-

[Violet_Crumble]

66. So, how did you find the address?

My experience has been the opposite, btw. It's usually large organisations that tend not to put specific contact details, names, or phone numbers on their website. Smaller organisations don't have to worry that if they put a street address or phone number up on the site that some poor employee will end up getting millions of phone calls a month from people who get to the main page of the site, spot a phone number and use it instead of searching the site for what they want...

Regardless, I think it's pretty clear that MEMRI isn't non-partisan at all. Sort of makes me think that it is worthwhile struggling to learn another language so I don't have to rely on sites like that...


Violet...

[Lithos]

67. Easy

Take the phone number and type it into Google.

L-

[Violet_Crumble]

68. D'oh!

It's so simple that the simplicity of it's probably the reason why it didn't occur to me to do it...

Violet...

[Jim Sagle]

101. I guess once you get swindled, the bitterness never leaves.

[Gimel]

69. MEMRI rebuttal

It might be worth while to read MEMRI's rebuttal of this article, posted by the Guardian (at the end)Whitaker, it seems, relies on a source called Hamas.

Read Memri's response to this article
21.08.2002: Media organisation rebuts accusations of selective journalism


http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,778373,00.html :

Whitaker's view of Memri's work is not shared by others. In fact most of the well-known media in the US respect and frequently quote Memri, for example the New York Times, Washington Post, New Republic, The New Yorker, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe and Miami Herald.

The Guardian itself published Thomas Friedman's column (October 16 2001) commending Memri translations. The Qatari Al-Jazeera television channel also trusts Memri and frequently asks me to appear on their programmes.

Even the Palestinian National Authority website has posted our material - with attribution. On the other hand, it is interesting to see whom Whitaker did choose to quote to back up his allegations against Memri. Ibrahim Hooper is the spokesman of CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, which supports Hamas.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,778373,00.html

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[drdon326]

12. Could be...should be...would be....

but isnt.

[JohnLocke]

47. What are you talking about?

First -- you say that "MEMRI is a pro-Israel think tank, and not particularly credible. They've been wrong about a great many things..."

Second -- MEMRI (the Middle East Media Research Institute)is, according to their website, an "independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit" organization. Well, of course they would say that. But MEMRI is also a 501(c)3 status organization, in which donations are tax deducable. No partasion orgamnizations are eligible for that status.

Third -- Some sources on MEMRI, from its website:

"As I was writing this column, I received an E-mail from Memri, the organization that opens the minds of those who cannot read Arabic by distributing almost daily translations of Arabic newspapers and government pronouncements."
- A.M. Rosenthal, New York Daily News, May 16, 2003

"The role that MEMRI is playing in bringing the voices of the Arab and Muslim Reform – from Arabic into English, to the world – has been absolutely invaluable for everyone who cares about this process and wants to follow it."
- Thomas Friedman, May 6, 2003

"Let me first express my appreciation to MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute, for invaluable work they’re doing. At a time when the line of division between the civilized world and terrorism is as clear as it is today, MEMRI’s enormously effective work, on behalf of truth, civilization, open press of all types, is deeply appreciated by many of us in the Congress."
- February 4, 2003, Tom Lantos (D-CA), Ranking Democrat of the Committee on International Relations Congressman

"… translations from Arabic on websites like www.memri.org let the rest of the world know what Saudis and other Arabs are saying to each other…"
- January 13, 2003, Newsweek

"http://memri.org - What they do is very simple, no commentary nothing else. What they do is they just translate what the Saudis say in the mosques, say in their newspapers, say in government pronouncements, say in their press."
- October 1, 2002, BBC

"MEMRI is an invaluable source for anyone seriously interested in the Middle East."
-Professor Bernard Lewis, Princeton University, September 3, 2001

"The single most important resource for understanding what is happening in the Middle East today."
-Charles Krauthammer, Pulitzer Prize winner, October 4, 2001

"MEMRI, an invaluable research service."
-Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times Pulitzer Prize winner, October 16, 2001

"I am full of admiration for the work MEMRI has done … in its dedicated exposure of Arab antisemitism. Until MEMRI undertook its effort to review and translate articles from the Arab press, there was only dim public awareness of this problem in the United States. Thanks to MEMRI, this ugly phenomenon has been unmasked, and numerous American writers have called attention to it."
- U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos, May 1, 2002

"… the excellent Middle East Media Research Institute"
-Former CIA director James Woolsey, June 10, 2002

"I have always considered MEMRI to be an invaluable research tool."
-Richard Cohen, nationally syndicated columnist, October 5, 2001

[edzontar]

72. Thanks for the testimonials John, but...

I am afraid they do nothing to defend MEMRI from the charge of being a strongly pro-Israel and presumably anti-Palestinian or hostile-to-Islam organization.

I know NOTHING about them--but any organization that has recieved endorsements from:

Lantos (A major Iraq-war hawk and chief orchestrator of the phoney 1990-91 "babys dumped from incubators" hearing in the US House;

AM Rosenthal--ex-NYT editorialist and Ed. Page editor who has repeatedly spoken out in favor of Likud and the policies of Bibi Netanyahu;

Prof. Bernard Lewis--neocon academic and pro-Iraq war author of "What went Wrong?";

Charles Krauthmanner--Hateful, Bigited, Right-Wing, pro-war, and anti-Arab pundit--and hired shill for the Bush administration;

James Woolsey--former CIA chief and major archiect of the Iraq war and the PNAC group;

Thomas Friedman--looney-tunes NY Times columnist and high-profile apologist for the Iraq war--not to mentioin a so-called expert on ME affairs who apparently cannot speak a word of Arabic(!)

And Richard Cohen--an I/P "Hawk" but not always a bad guy (OK, I'll give you a Cohen as not a complete RW whacko)...

Any organization with friends like these can only be considered an operation with a distinctly pro-Israeli and largely anti-Palestinian philosophy.

I don't know any more about them--nor, on the basis of these "Endorsements," do I feel compelled to find out.

If you can find a few more centirst and/or liberal voices that are willing to endorse the site, I might give a look--but so far, I am not so inclined.

You would have to find some better vices to convince me that this is a good place to visit.

[rini]

78. ah

but unbiased truth is a no-no when your mind is already made up.

[edzontar]

83. My point was that this site cannot be unbiased....

If it attracts endorsements from the neo-con swine cited by Mr. Locke.

[number6]

54. I Agree

"I think it's absurd that What Really Happened? is banned,but MEMRI (and AIPAC and the like) are not."

[JohnLocke]

81. Now THAT is absurd.

[pistoff democrat]

94. All this tsuris over MEMRI!

The ‘Islamic Affairs Department’ of the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C.

Part II: Teaching Islam's Superiority Over Christianity and Judaism

Islam Is The Universal and Final Message: Christianity and Judaism Are Not Acceptable

The IAD explains: "It is our opinion that whoever claims that any religion other than Islam is acceptable, such as Judaism, Christianity and so forth, is a non believer. He should be asked to repent. It is also our opinion that whoever rejects the universal message of Muhammad, (pbuh), rejects the message of all messengers, even if he claims that he believes and follows His Messenger." <19>

Verses from the Qur'an are cited to explain the Muslims' superiority over Christians and Jews: "Allah does not accept any other religion from anyone, for He, the Exalted, said: 'Surely, the true religion according to Allah is Islam…" <20> Another verse states, "Whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted from Him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers." <21>

A Hadith is used by the IAD to clarify who is a believer and who is a non-believer: "This is also clear from the following verses: 'Those who disbelieve in Allah and His Messengers, and wish to make division between Allah and His Messengers, and say: 'We believe in some and disbelieve in others,' wishing to take a midway course. Those indeed are the unbelievers, and We have prepared for the unbelievers a humiliating punishment.'" <22> The IAD adds, "We believe that the Muslim Ummah is the best among nations, and Allah, the Dignified and Exalted, has blessed it, because He said: 'You are the best nation ever brought forth for mankind, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah, The Prophet's Companions.'" <23>


and the complete, comprehensive report of 11/26/03 is located at:

http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SR2303

[Lithos]

97. Some background

WRH is a portal/aggregator with a limited amount of original material, a good amount of which includes disproven anti-semitic canards often hinting of some great Illuminati-like "Jewish conspiracy". In addition to this editorial focus, WRH has also included and condoned anti-semitic material from obvious hate sites such as Stormfront.

What MEMRI publishes is often hateful material from Islamic sites but does so without condoning it. But in fairness, the issue that does come up with MEMRI is not with the quality of the translation, but rather with its editorial policy - specifically does it purposefully find and publish only the most extreme commentary in the Islamic press in order to present a skewed view?

In the end, what it boils down to is that what MEMRI publishes is technically correct though often the context is in doubt. This places it more along the lines of Pravda or Xinhua. And like these publications, it is considered a respectable news organ, but one which is biased.

Lithos

[number6]

105. noted..

I don't agree with everything WRH links too, and I don't think
they condone all they link to ...

"hinting of some great Illuminati-like "Jewish conspiracy". In addition to this editorial focus, WRH has also included and condoned anti-semitic material from obvious hate sites such as Stormfront."

I've never been to Stormfront, never seen a link from WRH
to Stormfront...

I'll take your word for it, that its been on there.

[Jim Sagle]

102. That's because What Really Happened is a Nazi shit site.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

[bluesoul]

103. Ditto for all those junk RW sites

posted here...

[number6]

106. wrong !!!

:eyes: WRH is anti nazi

[pistoff democrat]

108. Just went to the site and found

Bush and Hitler being compared, IMO a dismissive comparison usually found on "Nazi" sites; and, I'm up to 6 anti-Israel stories on just one, (today's), date so far...with 11 hours more to go before the 'morrow!

Jim Sagle appears to have a point.

[Darranar]

109. Bush and Hitler being compared...

is not Nazi - there are actually some striking similarities, though not in scale of atrocities.

"Anti-israel" stories are not anti-semitic.

[durutti]

8. Israeli Textbooks and Children’s Literature Promote Racism and Hatred Towa

http://www.nad-plo.org/textbooks/wtextbook.html

Israeli school textbooks as well as children’s storybooks, according to recent academic studies and surveys, portray Palestinians and Arabs as “murderers,” “rioters,” “suspicious,” and generally backward and unproductive. Direct delegitimization and negative stereotyping of Palestinians and Arabs are the rule rather than the exception in Israeli schoolbooks.

Professor Daniel Bar-Tal of Tel Aviv University studied 124 elementary, middle- and high school textbooks on grammar and Hebrew literature, history, geography and citizenship. Bar-Tal concluded that Israeli textbooks present the view that Jews are involved in a justified, even humanitarian, war against an Arab enemy that refuses to accept and acknowledge the existence and rights of Jews in Israel.

“The early textbooks tended to describe acts of Arabs as hostile, deviant, cruel, immoral, unfair, with the intention to hurt Jews and to annihilate the State of Israel. Within this frame of reference, Arabs were delegitimized by the use of such labels as ‘robbers,’ ‘bloodthirsty,’ and ‘killers,’” said Professor Bar-Tal, adding that there has been little positive revision in the curriculum over the years.

Bar-Tal pointed out that Israeli textbooks continue to present Jews as industrious, brave and determined to cope with the difficulties of “improving the country in ways they believe the Arabs are incapable of.”

[rini]

22. Where to start

1st Ms. Meehan, the author of the piece has been cited by Cemera as a non-objective reporter; she slants facts to fit her world view.

2nd this study was sponsered by the PA

3rd NPR, not the most pro-Israel media in the world fired her and refused to accept any of her stories because she did not declare she was married to a PA official.

Please give me the name, author, isbn (if available)and date published about the books in question.

[Gimel]

26. Yes, Rini

This is certainly a slanted article. I can see more holes in it than swiss cheese.

[Paschall]

36. Could you give us links on that please, rini?

You make three different claims. It would be courteous of you to provide us links to the sources of your information. Without some kind of documentation for your remarks, I will have to assume--as you put it above--that you are merely trying to "discredit the messanger."

[BlackFrancis]

42. oh, CAMERA said so..

:eyes:

CAMERA is an absolutely nutty organization who make FLAME look sane.

[JohnLocke]

99. Evidence, please?

[rini]

28. I actually found info from Syria

Seems from 1948-67, no mention af Arabs in Israeli textbooks, '67-'90 uncomplemenatary passages. From the '90s on, textbooks have been revised to show an Arab point of view. To bad the same can't be said for PA authoroized texts.

[Paschall]

31. Hanan Aswhari compiled a list

In her speech before the UN conference on racism in Durban, she provided a similar list from Israeli officials.

"two-legged vermin, cockroaches, beasts walking on two legs, a people that have to be exterminated unless they are resigned to live as slaves, grasshoppers to be crushed, crocodiles, and vipers"

Sadly, there's more than enough xenophobia to go around.

[Gimel]

71. No reference

while her speech contains this accusation, no reference was provided for it. She relates to various statements Jabotinsky (1939), Ben Gurion and Golda Meir, but gives nothing in the present day context.

The allegations in the particular form that you have mentioned are merely heresay.

[Gimel]

98. the quotation, apparently very famous

we have undergone a metamorphosis willfully inflicted upon us by Israeli-imposed diction and policies that have variously depicted us as two-legged vermin, cockroaches, beasts walking on two legs, a people that have to be exterminated unless they are resigned to live as slaves, grasshoppers to be crushed, crocodiles, and vipers.


The lines were mentioned in Aswhari's speech, must be an example of the most damaging in Israeli text books she could find, right? Wrong. Those lines are not from an Israeli textbook. Those are lines from a novel written by Amos Oz, a famous Israeli award winning writer, who happens to be a Peace Now activist.
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/people/BIOS/oz.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june02/oz_1-23.html

If you want to investigate all literature for racial slurs and comments, and destroy books, you might start with the Protocals and the Hitler books that are persistently offered over the internet.

[rini]

32. always a day late and a dollar short

Israeli textbooks have been revamped for at least 13 years. No hatred there. Don't be to depressed, I know you'll find something else to mention.

[bluesoul]

33. No, no hatred there

that's why 16 year old girls are raped or civilians beaten and killed by the IDF..

[Paschall]

37. The article on Israeli textbooks dates from 1999

There's no indication the books studied were not contemporary. Can you provide a source for your information that explains how your remark about "revamping" might be relevant?

[rini]

79. in respons

http://www.edume.org/reports/5/3.htm This site says the Israeli texts were cleaned up in the '80s. The other site said the '90s.

[cknoch]

38. Those descriptions...

...sound just about right...Show me a border with the culture of radical Islam and I'll show you a war about to start.

[Jackie97]

20. They do need to learn to stop spewing hateful propoganda.....

Not to mention, idiotic.

[rini]

34. from your mouth to G-d's ears

n/t

[cknoch]

39. World War

Plain and simple...we have already been involved in the beginnings of a new world war. The war has been formally declared many times by the Radical Islamo-Fascist forces mainly on the forces of Humanist Democratic societies, but anyone else refusing to submit to their rule.

For some reason the Jewish people are the first ones to bear the brunt of this attack. But at least this time they can respond in kind (not justly or nice...this is war, people...not a UN peace experiment).

Radical Islam doesn't want to discuss peace...they only want subjugation and submission to Allah (especially in the "Holy Land"). The goal of these people is to send us back into the dark ages where religious leaders dictate what happens in society.

I don't like this...and our society shares the blame for the coming storm, but blame has no place in a fight for the right to exist freely...even if its in a cubicle LOL.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

41. Fundamentalist Islamic Radicals, Sir

Have rather declared war against the unbelievers of the West. They greatly overrate their powers, of course, but that is a problem with those who believe diety will see to their success. It is largely those things of the West progressives value most that cause them the greatest affront. It is worth reading their own literature on the matter.

[BlackFrancis]

43. but that's not why they want to attack us..

If we minded our own business they would just stick to clucking about the decadent West and go about their own business of making life hell for their neighbors with their religious bullshit.

Israel and India are unfortunately different stories because the prophet himself swore that India would one day be Muslim and the Abrahamic lineage Muhammed imagined they will be plagued by Islamic true believers as long as there are such things. We are not in that sort of position.

[The Magistrate]

44. It Is Not Possible To Do that, Sir

"Minding our own business" about the globe has not been a real option since late in the 19th century. All is connected by mercantile and financial ties, and the jostling of cultures cannot be avoided. It is certainly true that the matter of Israel in particular is a serious aggravation, but it is not the root of the problem. The continual impact of the modern West on a social compact unequal to the strain, and unfit for the competition, is.

The current strains of Jihadist fundamentalism, which arose during the mid-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, are today the leading reason for the great social deficeits afflicting the Islamic world. The greatest beneficiaries of breaking their power would be the Islamic peoples themselves, who would then be free to adapt their culture to the benefits of modernity, and be able to draw on the whole resource of their traditions to do so.

Simply leaving the jihadists to "their own business of making life hell for their neighbors with their religious bullshit," would be no solution. These people are well aware it is the West that makes it, really, impossible for them to do what they want; namely, to restore a caliphite, and extend its suzereignity to the whole globe, in a simultaneous revival of the past glories and eager imitation of the new conquerors. Some form of this current conflict would certainly eventuate: attack awaited only the right zealot, not the right reason.

[Paschall]

45. That is a rather sweeping generalization, Your Honor

"The current strains of Jihadist fundamentalism, which arose during the mid-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, are today the leading reason for the great social deficeits afflicting the Islamic world."

Do you mean social deficits within the Islamic world or social deficits of the Islamic world vis-à-vis the developed world?

[The Magistrate]

46. Any Perception Of Deficeit, Sir

Could only be relative to something else.

[Paschall]

51. Quite obviously, but which did you have in mind?

Or which, of the two categories I named, do you consider most important regarding the subject at hand?

[bemildred]

52. I believe he means the second of the two options you provided. nt

[The Magistrate]

53. You Know Me Well, Mr. Mildred

[Violet_Crumble]

55. Oh, really?

The current strains of Jihadist fundamentalism, which arose during the mid-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, are today the leading reason for the great social deficeits afflicting the Islamic world.


And how did you come to that conclusion? Somehow I suspect yr quite wrong on this one....

Violet...

[Darranar]

57. I agree with him...

The oppressive and abusive fundamentalist movements in the Arab world are indeed responsible for a lot of the current trouble; their brutalization of women and others and their suppression of political, personal, and religious freedoms causes tremendous amounts of agony throughout the region.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. So, yr wrong too...

Fundamentalism is NOT the leading reason for social deficit in the 'Islamic world'. The leading reason would easily be the repressive (and non-fundamentalist regimes) that have been put in place, many times with the active help of the US....

Violet...

[Darranar]

59. Well...

the actions taken on the social level are often abusive and do seem fundamentalist, regardless of the government itself. These actions are in part undertaken to generate more fundamentalist support for those governments.

[Violet_Crumble]

61. I think yr on a different page...

How many fundamentalist Islamic governments are there in what the Magistrate calls the Islamic world? My guess is not nearly enough for someone to make a sweeping judgement that fundamentalists are responsible for social problems in the Islamic world. Over the past half-century how many non-fundamentalist regimes have been helped into power by the US and then gone on to oppress the populations?

Fundamentalists haven't been in the habit of supporting repressive regimes put in place by the US, have they? If they have, that's news to me...

Violet...

[Paschall]

70. Magistrate...?

Magistrate indicates above that his remark concerning the predominance of Jihadic fundamentalism referred to social deficits between the Muslim-dominate and Western worlds. In sum, the "backwardness" of the Muslim world when compared to the more liberal West.

But still, Magistrate, I see no justification for that claim.

A number of the most populous Muslim nations have ostensibly secular governments where religous parties play no role, or where religous parties are, in fact, actively repressed by the powers in place. Yet many of these same countries are regularly fingered by human rights observers as the worst violaters. Pakistan, Syria, Algeria, Indonesia, and Egypt come immediately to mind. Oh, and Iraq. Similarly, some of these same nations are counted among the least prosperous, most poorly educated, and least egalitarian.

It seems apparent to me that the prime explanations for the limited freedom, social disparity, educational lag, gender inequality, and other such "social deficits" in the Muslim world are economic and political. I see no evidence to suggest they can be attributed to the supposed dominance of Jihadic fundamentalism.

Magistrate, perhaps you could help us understand what it is you're attempting to say here.

[The Magistrate]

73. We Do Not See Eye To Eye On This Matter, Ma'am

And seem unlikely to reconcile our differences over it. We do seem to be in agreement that the fundamentalists are a pernicious phenomenom; we disagree about the scale of the problem they present. It seems to me a larger and more intractable one than it does to you. It also seems to me you are somewhat concerned that criticism of it may tend toward a general denigration of Islam as a whole, or even reflect a prejudice towards that faith and it adherents, for which denunciation of the real problem of fundamentalist radicals serves as a mere cover. There are certainly instances where these concerns are justified. But they cannot be used in progressive circles to exempt from criticism a murderous reactionary movement, or to refuse to acknowledge the scale of its influence.

It cannot be denied that fundamentalist views exert a tremendous influence in the Islamic world. It says nothing against that statement to urge that few governments are in their hands. Influence among the mass of people and governmental authority are different things; either can be had without much of the other necessarily following. A rough analogy would be sixties "counter-culture" in the West. This has been profoundly influential in shaping social mores over recent decades, yet it can hardly be said to have ever held government power, not even in the persons of a few figures with roots in that movement who here and there hold or have held serious authority recently. Nor can it even be said that in its heyday, a very great proportion of the people actively participated in the "counter-culture". Hippies were thoroughly outnumbered by the crowds who came to gawk at them in the neighborhoods where they predominated.

This popular power of Islamic fundamentalism shows clearly in the lengths authoritarian governments go to placate them. The government of Pakistan is secular, yet it enforces Shiara as its law, and does so even now, when Gen. Musharref has broken many past explicit ties between Pakistan's government and the Islamicist parties. The government of Nigeria, similarly secular, allows the enforcement of Shiara by state authorities. The persecution of the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt is no full-bore proscription, but amounts to little more than a weeding out of persons who aim towards electoral influence, or seem willing to resort to violence. No one has much doubt that, if there were ever to be a free and fair election in Egypt, the Moslem Brothers would be placed in office.

What makes these radicals dangerous is that they are merely the sharp edge of a social and cultural implement of great weight and long standing. The Islamic world is in the unfortunate position of having a glorious past, that had in fact faded to squalor long before the present day, and for some centuries already the most general view of how to rectify the deficiencies of the present has been to somehow revive the past; to restore the ways and practices of the earliest days of Moslem glory, when all success was Islam's. That is the prescription of the fundamentalist radicals today, and it is a popular one, because it jibes with a long established popular mood. The difference is only in intensity of commitment to the ideal, and most people do not committ much to ideals, of any sort, in any culture. But the radical reactionaries of this movement are widely approved of, and more and more people nod at their ideas.

The problem is not just that it is not possible to revive the ways of the earliest community of believers; it is that within these ways, there lies much of the difficulty now afflicting the Islamic world. The disenfranchisement of women is basic to the system, and it does no good to appeal to occassional Koranic verses, and claim Mohammed improved the status of women in Arabia, as he may well have done: the status of women in eighth century Arabia is incompatible with a modern society today, and guarantees social and economic backwardness in the present day. It also requires a good deal of brutal and patently unjust enforcement, that must shock the conscience of any person who values human freedom. Belief that all needed knowledge lies in the Koran already distorts a great deal of what education there is in the Islamic world. Like all utopian prescriptions, the wisdom of the Koran concerning social arrangements and the world at large breaks down completely in application beyond the origional avatar and the close-knit body of his earliest followers. The Ummayads, even, could not really govern the first Islamic state by Koranic principles, and the present day will prove even more intractable.

[Violet_Crumble]

74. And the reason why we don't is...

...not that we disagree on the scale, nor that my concern comes from a fear that the entire religion may be smeared because of it (though we don't have to go any further than some of the posts in this forum to see that this does indeed happen). Where we disagree is on the statement that radical Islam is the leading cause of social deficit in the Islamic world. For fundamentalism to take root and thrive, the conditions of poverty and social disadvantage have to be there in the first place, and that's where in most of the cases I'm thinking of, it's been corrupt secular regimes propped up by the US that are the leading cause, both of economic and social disadvantage of the population, and the leading cause of why the fundies get a leg up in the first place. People, no matter what religion they are, would treat the fundies like the whackadoodles they are if the alternative they face in reality wasn't so ugly...

I think it's a mistake to treat the Islamic world like it's some homogenous thing when there's so much diversity in it. It's kind of like calling Western nations the Christian world and ignoring us atheists who hate all fundamentalism equally and have no interest in god, no matter which of the three Semitic religions is touting her name to support their primitive view of what the world should look like...

As a feminist I was aware of the Taliban and their abuse of Afghan women long before Bush dared to pretend that suddenly he gave a toss what happened to women there and use it as one of his many excuses for why it was alright to bomb the crap out of Afghanistan. But if Christian fundies ever got the chance to take power in the US, the lot of women wouldn't be a whole lot better, they'd just be treated like shit in different ways. And when it comes to the mainstream of Christianity, all it takes is a look the death and suffering caused in Third World countries by the Catholic Church. And if the Vatican could get away with it, that same suffering and misery would be visited on countries like ours without a second thought...

The way I see it on a purely selfish 'How Does This Affect Me' sort of way is that Islamic fundamentalists didn't pose any sort of threat to me before Bush started playing Which Nation Will I Bomb Next? Now they do, and that threat is wholly and solely the responsibility of my government for secreting themselves so far up the backside of Bush that it's nearly impossible to spot even their shiny shoes up there, and the US government for not understanding that change has to come from within and not from cutely named operations that result in so much carnage...

This essay is a voice of reason amongst a deluge of dribble on women and fundamentalism. Women, War and Fundamentalism in the Middle East

Violet...

[drdon326]

75. Really ??

"The way I see it on a purely selfish 'How Does This Affect Me' sort of way is that Islamic fundamentalists didn't pose any sort of threat to me before Bush started playing Which Nation Will I Bomb Next?"

I'm worried about your diminishing long term memory...

can you say "BALI" ??

You know, its only a matter of time before jihadofascism shows
up in Syndney harbor. It will be a real blast.

[Violet_Crumble]

76. Yes, really...

Can you compare the dates of Bali to the date Bush started taking a crap on Afghanistan? Or did I get it wrong and Bali happened before Afghanistan was bombed?

Given our right-wing government's fawning adulation of US foreign policy, it wouldn't surprise me if there was an attack in the future. Which is what I thought I'd gotten across clearly in my post - that our blind support of the US makes us a target that we never were before...

p.s. If those jihadofascists asked me for directions to Sydney Harbour, I'd point them towards Pine Gap. That's one place I'd be happy to see the end of...

Violet...

[bluesoul]

77. Like all those blast

that were supposed to happen after 9/11 and all those terrorist attacks that were certain to happen as Bush and his gang said, but never did... Aha

[The Magistrate]

82. Several Points, Ma'am

The conditions of poverty and social disadvantage long predate the present authoritarian regimes, and predate even the high colonial period itself. Neither thing caused them, nor is there any particular reason to suppose that without the developments of the last two centuries, matters would be much different in that regard. The feudal economics that guaranteed misery for the greatest proportion of the populace, and the religious and cultural strictures that held one gender chattel and prevented social and technical advancement, along with the structures of authoritarian governance, whether on the grand scale of imperium or the petty scale of tribe and family, that denied all liberty, would have remained firmly in place. The old social and political orders were self-sustaining, high-end equilibria, that maintained themselves for millenia absent external shock.

It requires a concious effort of will for irreligious people to appreciate the grip of religion on religious people, and to appreciate how greatly religion predominates among the people of this earth even in the present day. The greater the degree of stress people are subjected to, the greater the likelihood of their strong religious attachment. To people who are attached to religious beliefs, persons who call for a greater purity of belief and action are not obviously crackpots, but very likely to be perceived as inspirational, and even to be making practical suggestions for emulation. Many are likely to feel only shame in their hearts at their own inability to act in such complete committment to the faith they proffess as well.

"Christendom" is probably, in some ways, a better usage than "the West" for reference to the cultural and social complex originating in Europe, that has come in our time to dominate the globe. Certainly in discussing any large matter in a small space, a great deal of simplification is necessary, but it does not necessarily distort to do this. It is my own view that the similarities are of greater consequence than the differences, and the more massive trends and features worthy of more attention than the minor ones. Certainly before perhaps a century ago, it would both easy and adviseable, in any short over-view of the West, to ignore the phenomenon of atheism entirely. Even today it is not widespread, and even in the Communist countries, where it was the official, and sternly enforced doctrine, belief in diety and religion continued to enjoy the attachment of the great preponderance of the people.

My views in this matter are not determined by who has been the worst actor over previous millenia, but strictly by who has the firmest roots and does the greatest harm in the present. Christian fundamentalism is not going to reverse the present social and cultural trends in the West; the West as a system cannot function without continued innovation, and the fullest possible participation of all persons within its social and economic order. The fundamentalist view is wholly inimical to these necessities, and therefore cannot come to predominate in the Western order. Indeed, the development of the modern West arose from the rejection of such an order, in which religion dominated all public spheres and every aspect of daily life.

It was the actions of a particular bunch of radical Islamic fundamentalists that innaugurated the current situation in the world: these indulged in a round themselves of "what nation will we bomb," settled on the United States, and committed a rather extraordinary crime of war. The destruction of their open basing in Afghanistan, where they existed as an arm of the fundamentalist state of the Taliban, was a proper and a necessary action, which enjoyed predominant support in the world, and ought to have enjoyed the support of progressive and left persons as well. That the follow through in the campaign has been extraordinarily poor is unfortunate, and will be accounted in histories of the matter as a tremendous failing on the part of the people who executed a necessary thing in so foolish a wise. It is certainly true that most actions of the current administration in relation to this conflict are sadly misguided, and reveal a lack of understanding of the foe being faced, and of the best strategies for overcoming him. There is, however, a necessity for force in the conflict that cannot be wished away.

[edzontar]

80. Sir, what impact would you attribute to colonialism?

As a factor in the present situation.

I know that most of these countries acheived post-colonial, independent status by the early 1950s, but it seems to me that radical Islam could be considered a product of the perceived failure of the original post-colonial governments and their neo-socialist, quasi-fascist, secular-corrupt institutions.

It is surely significant that the most significant movements in the earleir phases of fundamentalism emerged in Iran and Afghanistan--two non-Arab states where the fundamentalists saw themselves involved in a conflict with "outside" powers--the USA and the USSR.

The foundation and expansion of Israel is also frequently framed in historically-colonialist terms in the Muslim--Arab world.

So-what about colonialism and its perceived aftermath as a factor in present attitudes and conflicts in the region?

[The Magistrate]

84. Concerning Colonialism, Mr. Paschall

It is probably best at the outset, Sir, to state that my views on this question are heretical by present day left dogmas, and you are free to treat what follows here as an exercise in devil's advocacy. Colonialism, it seems to me, has become a titanic alibi, and what claims to explain everything necessarily fails to explain anything in particular, rather as supernaturalism fails in fact to explain anything about the world around us.

Colonialism is no explaination for the backwardness of post-colonial lands; Colonialism could not have occured in the first place without that backwardness. The social, political, and cultural structures of the Ottoman and the Ching and the Rajahs all contained tremendous debilities, without which the West could never have succeeded in dominating them to the degree it came to. It can be argued that Colonialism preserved these debilities for the gain of colonial powers, but to be valid, this argument requires one to suppose that there would have been some correction to these debilities had the colonial powers not appeared, and there does not seem to me much ground for such a belief. My study of Imperial China, and my respect and even affection for that polity, does not incline me to the view it would have altered one whit had the fang qui never appeared on the coast, nor does my knowledge of the Ottoman imperium suggest there would have been any such development there. The ancient structures of traditional authority were remarkably self-correcting and self-sustaining, maintaining a sort of steady state that actively resisted innovation and change: even revolution itself was integrated into the system over the long view.

Colonialism was itself the chief impetus to modernization in these societies, and the only source for the tools, both intellectual and mechanical, by which it might be achieved. This was certainly not the intent of the colonizers, or anyway not their predominant intent, but it was the practical issue of their actions. They ignited the social revolution in Asia, made possible the overthrow of ancient feudal structures, and put before people there the possibilty of new arrangements in economic and social life that could redound to the benefit of the great mass submerged in feudal mis-rule.

This was, certainly, not a pleasant process. It began in shame at the failure of what most directly affected had always believed was the right and best and clearly superior way for people's affairs to be conducted. The spectacle of Western power was a profound shock. The principle which has predominated in human society throughout history is belief that there was a single right way to do things, that the ancestors had found it, and that departure from their ways spelt disaster, and so must actively be discouraged. The collapse of this certainty before the innovation of the West introduced a tremendous crisis of belief, that allowed at bottom for only two courses towards restoring equilibrium; the practical method of adopting Western innovation to beat them at their own game, or the magical method of redoubling attempts to achieve perfect fealty to the ways of the ancestors, in the belief that it was only the slackening of such devotion that had allowed the catastrophe to come about.

Societies subjected to Colonialism after having already achieved complex integrations of their own have fared in the present day roughly in accord with which of these two courses formed their predominant reaction to that crisis. Those which most vigorously adopted the course of imitation have done fairly well; those which most vigorously adopted the course of redoubled fealty to old ways have done poorly. Broadly speaking, what might be called the Confucian cultures have managed to integrate Western ways with some success into their traditional structures, and fared rather well, while the cultures wherein Islam is the dominant influence have largely succumbed to the temptation of redoubled fealty to the old ways, and fared rather poorly.

Islamic thought seems more prone to that course than Confucian, because it invests a quality of sacred and divine inspiration to the elder ways that is absent from the Confucian. Confucian thought is purely human: Confucius was not struck by revelation dictated by diety, but applied human reason within the parameters of an established world-view already antique in his day. Such a system is easier to alter, and even to evade, where necessary. Among the fundamental precepts of Islam is that an order based on submission to the revealed will of the diety is demonstrably superior to all others; that it must succeed, and certainly cannot fail. Already towards the end of the medieval period, the predominant response of Islamic thinkers to occassions of disaster and difficulty had come to be the prescription of restoring the old perfection, as only lapse from this could be the cause of difficulties. In the modern era, this gained, rather than lost strength, as the most popular course for dealing with present difficulties. "Reformationist" tendencies in Islamic thought and polities long predate the events in Iran and Afghanistan late in the last century. Wahhabism arose in the eighteenth century, largely independent of any direct Western impingement, though Ottoman attempts to incorporate some elements of Western modernity into their imperium had some influence. The Deobandi strain arose in the mid-nineteenth century, in direct reaction to English dominance in India, and established a tone that still persists strongly in the tribal regions of Pakistan. Armed resistance to England in the Near East early in the twentieth century was generally couched in jihadist terms; nationalist parties, by compare, were mere debating societies. Comintern operatives in the twenties and thirties of the last century universally despaired of gaining influence in the region, viewed as a potentially vital field in which to assail capitalism, and ascribed their failure to the religious authorities, and their dominance of the people there. Secular modernist strains arising in the wake of formal Colonialism, whether Ba'athist or Nasserite, were bitterly opposed by reformationist movements as anti-religious. This is not a phenomenon only of the present day, but rather one which has strongly marked the entire period, and persists into the present day, in seemingly increased strength.

[edzontar]

85. It was me who asked, Mr. M...and thanks..

I do think your (generous and thoughtful) interpretation is a little off-point though.

My point was that the very fact of colonialism--of the conquest and control of many ME states by Western powers like France, England, etc., and the subsequent meddling and incursions of the USA, etc. may help explain the present resentment of the so-called "West" in the region, which has moved from the old Arab-nationalist movement of the 1950s-60s to the appeal of fundamentalism today.

Situations like our present "Adventure" in Iraq and apparently unconditional support for Israel only serve to stoke the flames of this movement.

On another note, I am inclined to dispute your Bernard Lewis-esque concept of Islamic "Backwardness" since it presumes a certain western-developmental model which seems almost Hegelian in its presumption that movement toward the Western systems of capitalism and democracy is both "natural" and inevitable....I don't think this is the case, and this whole way of thinking seems to betray a rather deep and unstated Western/Captialist/Christian-centric worldview that I find unattractive.

That said, some of your specific points are historically valid and interesting.

[The Magistrate]

86. My Apologies, Mr. Zontar

Where my mind was is beyond me. No fool like an old fool, eh?

You may further forgive me for disagreeing that the subtext you feel underlays my views in this matter is actually present. In my view there is very little that could be called inevitable to history, or that provides any particular direction to it: history is a record of events that in most cases might well have turned out other than they did, although there do seem to be some contingent parameters defining possible outcomes at any given time and place. There are also winners and losers in history, and systems that have coped better or worse with conditions confronting them, and systems which differ somewhat in their basic assumptions, and accordingly work out different answers from their differing kits of mental tools.

About the only things which it seems to me could be fairly characterized as natural or inevitable about human development and history is that human cultures tend to increase in complexity as the number of persons they incorporate increases, that human cultures strive to reproduce themselves into the future, and that human cultures and political structures tend to expand to the limit of their ability do so, whether these limits are defined by strong neighbors, technological restrictions on the effective exercise of power, or the sheer cussedness of things, that tends on a fundamental level to resist governance. It does not seem to me that there was anything inevitable about recent developments in the West; indeed, they strike me as an abberation akin to mutation in a body of organisms, and certainly not as a thing all societies are tending towards, or ever have been tending towards. However, it does seem to me that there is something about the Western means of accumulating and focusing power that, having come into existence, forces all other societies to adapt to these means, or face subjugation by those who wield them, rather in the same way that the appearance of a new species in an ecosystem that can more efficiently exploit its resources than the existing ones will exert a pressure against the origional species that must end by their diminishment or even extinction. Human cultures, of course, have resources for adopting adaptations that organism lack, as these cannot voluntarily alter their genetic make-up, and one of the leading such resources of human cultures is imitation.

It is certainly not my view that there is anything inherent to Christianity which fostered these developments in the West. Rather, it is my view that these developments took place precisely as the attachment of the West to Christianity as an organizing principle for thought and action loosened. This development seems to me to have its deepest roots in the Great Death of the fourteenth century, which induced a tremendous crisis of faith, that soon led to grave fragmentation of religious authority and views. In a monotheistic faith, certainly, that is something it is fatal to press too far: everyone cannot be right, and there are no real grounds, short of fire and sword, for quelling doubts about matters that are by their very nature insusceptible of proof.

The general answer given for why innovation was able to take root as an organizing principle in the West is the great fragmentation of political power there, with many authorities jostling for power with one another in a confined space, each seeking some advantage over the other. It is worth pointing out, too, the more profound seperation of sacred and political authority that marked Europe, for in the great and longest lived of the elder societies, these functions always joined in a single ruler, while in the foundation of Islam, they were surely so joined in the person of Mohammed. Had some fellow like Constantine or Charlemagne insisted on making himself Pope and uniting those functions in Christendom at a formative stage, things might well have developed differently than they did. Europe, in many ways, failed by the standards of pre-modern social and political organization: it was unable to sustain a widely recognized rule by a Divine Ruler presiding over a state of equilibrium, which has hitherto been the working model for successful and durable cultural transmission.

It seems to me that the various details of colonialism you speak of are contained in the great disparity of power between the two cultures that events had made undeniably manifest by the nineteenth century: that was the wound, the details are merely the itches and irritants that keep it open and reddened. Conflict between Islam and Christendom, after all, was nothing new, and for much of its course, Islam had come out rather well. Nowadays it is not often appreciated to what degree Islam was a culture of expansive imperialism, elements of which focused their aim for conquest against Christian Europe. The first wave of expansion famously incorporated the Iberian peninsula, and the Ottoman strove ceaselessly to extend its suzereignity west into Europe. It was not until well into the seventeenth century that it could be said this drive had been stood off successfully. It was a thing conducted with atrocious cruelty, compounded of murder and slaving, that certainly conditioned Western views in succeeding centuries. European colonialism in the Near East had as its origin the rolling back of the Grand Turk into Asia; a continuing episode in a centuries long war between the peoples, rather than a sudden leap into unaccountable aggressions. The bad blood between the systems, the hate and fear of each for the other, is very, very old.

[edzontar]

87. Thoughtful points, as always....

And I appreciate the clarifications.

Have you ever had the opportunity to visit some of the monuments in Andalusia (Spain)?

I went last year, and the Islamic stuff--the Mosque at Crdoba, the Alhambra, etc, are truly spectacular testimony for "What went right" in the Medieval Muslim world.

Seeing these things changed my life.

[The Magistrate]

88. Thank You, Sir

My one venture into Spain, back in the days when Gen. Franco was very much alive, was to Barcelona: stayed in the old quarter near the railway station, where the streets were so narrow that in many, you could stand in the center and stretching out your arms, touch the walls on either side. Once a Volkswagen Beetle drove through, and was nearly wedged into immobility. Sightseeing was never much of a priority for me in traveling, but there I made a point of seeing the great way of the Ramblas, where the riot police made common cause with the anarchist braves to defeat the mutinous soldiers on the 18th of July in '36, and the Continental Hotel, where Mr. Orwell stood sentry go during the '37 fighting.

[edzontar]

90. Sounds fascinating...I was there in 2002....

You should go back and see Andalusia--Seville, Cordoba, Granade--very inspiring.

Also, I suspect things have loosened up sicne the bad old Franco days.

Go in summer around Corpus Christi and see the carnivals, processions, and street fairs.These folks know how to live it up, that is for sure!

[Lurking Dem]

91. I'm convinced

there is no more beautiful architecture on earth than some of the Moorish buildings I have seen pictures of.

I hope I get to go some day.

edited typo

[Lithos]

89. Guns, Germs and Steel?

You sound like you find much to agree with in Mr. Diamond's book.

L-

[The Magistrate]

92. Indeed, Mr. Lithos

Prof. Diamond's work is indispensible; he is a very sound and useful thinker.

[bemildred]

93. No disrespect to Mr. Diamond,

or you Sir, but it seems to me that you focus
on a somewhat different set of factors than
Mr. Diamond. He does not emphasize the cultural
factors so much as accidents of geography etc.
Or that was my reading. Would you agree?

FWIW I am of the opinion that both sets of factors
are important.

[The Magistrate]

95. That Is True, Sir

Prof. Diamond is addressing the question on the broadest possible scale, and so pays more attention to the parameters that make even possible complex cultures. When he does deal with particular cultures, the touch is not quite so sure: his analysis, for instance, of why Chinese sea-going ventures ceased seems to me a little flawed, and it would not surprise me if specialists in other areas touched on had similar quibbles. But none of this undermines the grand picture of the work, which seems to me indisputable. In addressing all of human history at the rate of roughly a page a decade, there must be some obscuration of detail to present the picture in its whole.

One of the greatest contributions Prof. Diamond has made is to popularize an outlook and vocabulary that enables certain indisputable facts of human development to be addressed without imputations of intrinsic superiority and inferiority, or inviting attack from those over-zealous in their dedication to expunging those notions from the realm of human thought.

A good deal of my thinking on this subject was sparked by an aside in an essay by the late paleontologist, Prof. Gould, in which he offered the development and inter-play of human cultures as an illustration of what a Lamarckian directed evolution would resemble. Provided the thing is not pushed too far, it does seem helpful to see cultures analogously as biological entities, colonial creatures made up of associated independent but cooperating and somewhat specialized cells. Cultures do have a sort of fixed form, and specialize in adaptations to particular niches and means of exploiting them. It is possible for conditions to change, and make these adaptations and means less efficient, or even counterproductive, and those which cannot then innovate or imitate cease to preserve themselves in any form: we excavate their middens and their ruins.

[Lithos]

96. He actually did emphasize cultural differences

However, but usually in terms of how a culture developed in reaction to things. He carefully avoided trying to try and set things up that one culture was better than another and tried very hard to define his heuristics in terms of very specific situational in terms of access to resources (domesticated animals, minerals, good farming land, etc.) relational effects (interaction with other cultures, etc.).

L-

[bemildred]

100. Culture is inseparable from human activity.

One might even say they are the same.
I don't quite see what you mean by that.

His subtext is that cultures are not successful because
they are "good", but because of their history and access
to resources of various types. In other words, they adapt to
and exploit their environment, and the results of that
adaptation largely explains their successes and failures
when they come into conflict.

Mr. Magistrate's analogy with evolution is well founded.

My own view is that the "superiority" of Western culture is
narcissistic hubris, one sees the same in any dominant
culture, and they all fall by the wayside over time. History
is not a novel and the current period is not the last
chapter, and the notion that we will continue to reside at the
top is a pleasant fiction that we repeat to ourselves to dispel
our fear of the dark.

This is not to say there not merits to Western culture,
but those merits are not unique to us, nor do we "own" them.

Edit: grammar.

[Lithos]

104. I think we are saying the same thing

I was just trying to make the point that Mr. Diamond did talk about culture in his book, but did so in a manner which tried to avoid saying one is "superior". I too was trying to dance around this point and I guess I was not clear in it.

Evolution and the concept of cultures as a set of competing memes are very valid points and are what Mr. Diamond was talking about. I share your point that those who claim that Western culture is better/superior are missing a bigger picture.

I also like your analogy of History is not a novel with a convenient ending. Very true.

L-

[bemildred]

107. I am glad we agree.

I would go farther and say that he does not think
that any culture is, in any categorical sense, superior.
They have superior memes and technologies in some particular
set of circumstances, and for a limited period in time. There
is much that is good and useful and interesting in any
human society, and much that is bad. The problem is to
sort out the good from the bad, not to instigate some sort
of human monoculture.

My favorite example is the Mongols. Militarily in their time
and place they were easily the pick of the litter. They scared
the bejeezus out of everyone else, and rightly so. Otherwise,
while somewhat interesting in their own right, they were
profoundly destructive and culturally mediocre.

I wasn't really trying to start an argument, cultural chauvinism
is one of my buttons, and I guess it set me off a bit. :-)