DONATE

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Am I too Rough on Arabs? PT 1


John R. Houk
© September 28, 2010


A person calling himself John posted a comment I must say with great politeness. Now I emphasize “great politeness” because he begins his comment in agreement with my stand as a supporter of Israel yet ends with a polite vilification on my stance concerning Islam. Read the comment to find out how “absurd” I am then I will defend my stance.

JRH 9/28/10
***************************
Sent by: John
Sent: Sep 25, 2010 at 2:15 PM

Comment:
John, I much appreciate your hard stance against the creation of the Palestinian state. I do know there are lots of problems for Israel if they allow it to be created. I am actually sympathetic to the Right Wing position in this matter.

Your absurd positions about all things Arab, have almost talked me out of it, though. You could make the argument that there is no such thing as a Palestinian, and I may embrace that. You could argue that Yasser Arafat established a plan to make the concept of a Palestinian people come into existence and that they are the inhabitants of the occupied territories, and I would even consider that a valid point, though not one that necessarily denies the current inhabitants of that land the right to self-determination.

You could make the argument that Israel only occupies the disputed land because the nations that surround it tried on multiple occasions to annihilate Israel from those strategic locations and that the non Jewish neighbors of Israel will need that land on the next go around, and I could even sympathize with that.

Instead you pretty consistently argue that Arabs are evil because their text contains atrocities of thought in almost Biblical proportions. If you believe the Bible, then your Christian God is one of the world’s great villains and nothing Allah or his followers could do or say would ever overshadow your own God’s foibles.

However, if you realize that Bibles are compilations of writings produced by men, and that they have an assortment of perspectives and views and that they can be guides used for good or evil depending on how good or evil the user is, then you may not reject an entire people just because you learn that their God’s reputation is as corrupt as that of your own God. I would discuss the issue more, but I have to go read about God's commanding that every man woman and child be slain because while He was mad at someone, like you, he fully grasped the wisdom of guilt by association. J

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My Answer


Let’s start with, “Your absurd positions about all things Arab, have almost talked me out of it, though.”

It is easy to presume that I have an anti-Arab position. After all my most common reference relating to the terrorists and terrorist supporting people of Judea and Samaria (named the West Bank after Jordanian conquest and annexation 1948-49) as well as the terrorists and terrorist supporting inhabitants of the Gaza Strip IS “Arabs who call themselves Palestinians”. I can see the easy mistake that I am anti-Arab.

The reality is that I am anti-Islam. Although most Muslims are not Arabs, most Arabs are Muslims. The majority of the population of the Middle East and North Africa were Christians prior to Islamic conquest in the mid-600’s through mid-700’s AD. The Christian Arabs had mixed feelings about Islamic conquest initially. The Eastern Orthodox Arab Christians were exterminated or converted to Islam rather than live a life of Islamic oppression. There Arab Christians that did not follow Orthodox Christianity at the time of Islamic conquest. These Arab Christians initially welcomed Islamic conquest because the Orthodox Christians persecuted them as heretics. This is similar to how Sunni Muslims (90%) persecute Shia Muslims (10%) and vice versa. The Orthodox considered these various alternative Christians as heretics because of minor differences in theology which are not part of this discussion. Nonetheless, the so-called heretic Christians agreed on the major issues of all Christianity; viz. that Christ died on the Cross, was buried in a tomb, arose from that tomb alive in the Resurrection of the First Born from the dead, walked with the original Apostles (minus Judas Iscariot) and many other believing Disciples for roughly 40 days and then ascended bodily to the realm of Heaven with the full Divine attributes that Jesus gave up to become incarnated as a man to Save humanity from its fallen nature acquired after Adam’s betrayal of God toward Satan. (All of which are vehemently denied in Islam)

These surviving Arab and Egyptian Christians today would be called Assyrian Christians, Chaldean Christians, Maronite Christians, Coptic-Ethiopian Christians, Cooperating Syrian Community Churches, Armenian Christians, of course there is a residue of Eastern Orthodox Church which bravely maintains a Patriarchate in conquered Constantinople renamed Istanbul by Turkish Muslims and undoubtedly some Christians sects which I missed.

Christendom in the Middle East and North Africa was the majority of the population for centuries even after Islamic conquest. Islamic Supremacism as taught by the Quran and the Hadith gave options of survival for People of the Book, i.e. Jews and Christians. The options derived from theopolitical Islam runs roughly like this: Convert to Islam, live as a humiliated and oppressed person having to pay a tax (jizya) under the most degrading fashion conceived for so-called “protection” from other Muslims who otherwise will kill them or failing the submission conversion or dhimmitude – execution.

This explains my attitude toward Islam/Mohammedanism; ergo not to a race of people who have adopted wickedness of Islam as a religious faith.

John the commenter said this about Arabs who call themselves Palestinians: “…Palestinian people come into existence and that they are the inhabitants of the occupied territories, and I would even consider that a valid point, though not one that necessarily denies the current inhabitants of that land the right to self-determination.”

If Judea and Samaria was ever occupied territory in the 20th Century an occupation under the British leadership guiding the Transjordanian Arab Legion to occupy Judea and Samaria. After Transjordan occupied Judea and Samaria they unilaterally annexed the land and named it the West Bank with the logic of Transjordan being the East Bank. Transjordan’s King then renamed his Hashemite Kingdom Jordan consisting of the British built Transjordan and the occupied West Bank.

In 1967 Arab belligerence to Israel’s existence was built and Jordan was one of the nations and the Palestine Liberation Organization’s intent to once again obliterate Israel. Israel decimated Arab secular yet rule of law based on Islam nations in six days. The result of Israel’s victory was acquiring Gaza and Sinai Peninsula – Egypt, Golan Heights – Syria and reacquisition of ALL of Jerusalem (including the Jewish Quarter of the Old City desecrated in 1948 by rabid Muslims) as well as Judea and Samaria termed the West Bank by one-time occupier Jordan.

Gaza and Sinai were actually occupied land for they had long been under Egyptian sovereignty before the establishment of League of Nations Palestine Mandate to be managed by the British. After peace and Egyptian recognition of Israel as a sovereign nation the Sinai was returned. Ironically the Egyptian government wanted nothing to do with the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians in the Gaza Strip which was formerly under Egyptian sovereignty prior to 1967.

The Golan Heights are considered just as much an occupied territory as Judea and Samaria are by Arab nations and the West. Yet the Golan Heights were a part of the original League of Nations Palestine Mandate that was to be guaranteed to a Jewish Homeland by then Syrian ruler King Feisal in 1918.

Like the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine," called upon the mandatory power to "secure establishment of the Jewish National Home," with "an appropriate Jewish agency" to be set up for advice and cooperation to that end. The World Zionist Organization, which was specifically recognized as the appropriate vehicle, formally established the Jewish Agency in 1929. Jewish immigration was to be facilitated, while ensuring that the "rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced." English, Arabic, and Hebrew were all to be official languages. (Palestine Facts)

The beginnings of British Empire treachery emerges circa 1921 when the Brits began to realize (i.e. WWII hero Winston Churchill) that Jew-hatred was being instilled into Arab Muslims preeminently by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Muhammed Amin al-Husseini and the emerging Muslim Brotherhood. A combination Arab tribal jealousy, elite ruling Arabs vying for a piece of the Ottoman Empire’s territory being carved up by the British and French has made today’s Middle Eastern map. The Middle East nation building Coupled with Islamic Supremacism led to a change of heart toward the existence of a Jewish Homeland in Dar al-Islam. British National Interests outweighed British sympathy for establishing a Jewish Homeland in their ancestral homeland.
In March 1921, Winston Churchill, then British colonial secretary, convened a high-level conference in Cairo to consider Middle East policy. As a result of these deliberations, Britain subdivided the Palestine Mandate along the Jordan River-Gulf of Aqaba line. The eastern portion--called Transjordan--was to have a separate Arab administration operating under the general supervision of the commissioner for Palestine, with Abdullah appointed as emir. At a follow-up meeting in Jerusalem with Churchill, High Commissioner Herbert Samuel, and Lawrence, Abdullah agreed to abandon his Syrian project in return for the emirate and a substantial British subsidy.

A British government memorandum in September 1922 ("The Churchill White Paper"), approved by the League of Nations Council, specifically excluded Jewish settlement from the Transjordan area of the Palestine Mandate. The whole process was aimed at satisfying wartime pledges made to the Arabs and at carrying out British responsibilities under the Mandate. Unfortunately for the Zionists and counter to the whole expressed purpose of the Mandate in the first place, by this action more than three-quarters of the territory of the British Mandate was taken away from the potential Jewish Homeland without any corresponding action favoring the Palestinian Jews. The squeeky Arab wheel was greased with concessions at the sole expense of the Jewish population
. (Ibid. – Palestine Facts)

John the commenter when you refer to “…not one that necessarily denies the current inhabitants of that land the right to self-determination.” You are obviously thinking in Western terms. Every single nation in the Asian Middle East prior to the end of WWI were Arabs under the domination of Muslim Ottoman Turks that lost to the British and the French. After Britain, France with the help of America won WWI; the winners made an attempt to merge Anatolian Greeks with European Greece. That idea didn’t go over too well Ottoman Turkish military officers. Hence Muslim Mustafa Kemal became secularist Kemal Ataturk re-banding the Turkish military together handing invading Greece an unexpected yet huge defeat. This led to a mutual dispossessing of Turkish Muslims in Greece and Christian Greeks in Turkey. Of which the Greeks received the harsher treatment as many were expelled on penalty of death from land lived on before the Ottomans even existed. Turkish Muslims did not have a pleasant time of expulsion from Greece, but Turkish Muslims were a bit more willing to move back to a nation named for their ethnic roots; i.e. Turkey.

It is in this time period in the waning days of WWI that Armenian Christians were rounded up and forced on a march toward eastern edges of Turkey. Note Turks do not consider themselves Arab and do not consider themselves Turks yet the commonality is Islam. Muslim Turks did their best to end Armenians in Turkey who had become quite involved in public life. Remember Armenians were Christians and a combination of Islamic Supremacism and Turkish nationalism required an influential minority to be divested from Turkey. In Armenians case this meant genocide in a forced march that saw stragglers killed, the hungry starved to death, the women raped ending in about 1.5 million deaths out a rough 2 million Anatolia Armenians.

I can tell I have more to answer about the evil of Islam in defense of my stand, so let’s call this Part One.

No comments:

Post a Comment