• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Ray Harris is a frequent contributor to this website. He has written articles on 9/11, boomeritis, the Iraq war and Third Way politics. Since 2007 he took to writing his novels Navaratri, Wild Child and Eden. Harris lives in Ballarat, Victoria, Australia.

The Chosen People

Reflections on the Israel Palestine conflict, Part 3

Ray Harris

“O my people, enter the Holy Land which God has assigned for you, and do not turn back, lest you return as losers.”, The Koran, Surah 5:21

“And certainly We gave the Book to Musa, so be not in doubt concerning the receiving of it, and We made it a guide for the children of Israel.” The Koran, Surah 32:23

Recently I decided to skim over some of the articles compiled under the banner, 'The War in Gaza'. Somewhat reluctantly I decided to see what Joseph Dillard had to say, for example in "Simplifying the Israel/Palestine Conflict". Was there any change in his position? No. It was the same old ideologically motivated, anti-Western, regressive left polemic, the type that somehow manages to defend authoritarian/fascist governments like Russia, China and Iran (and others) simply because they oppose the West. As usual it was full of disinformation, distortion and outright lies and deception. I'm not going to do a point by point rebuttal. I've done that in the past. It doesn't change his mind. However, I am going to use something he says to point to a common misconception regarding the Israel Palestine conflict - or should I say, a common hypocrisy? One that touches on the themes in my recent articles on the issue: Strange Bedfellows: After Bondi and The Neglected Cause: Al-Aqsa.

Dillard says:

“Israeli justifications for its occupation, thievery of land and houses, and attacks on Palestinians are based on the belief that God gave the Holy Land to Jews. Due to a belief in divine law and also a belief that it supersedes human law, Zionists claim Palestine is their birthright. This is ironic. The Israeli historian Ilan Pappe has observed, “Most Zionists don't believe that God exists, but they do believe that he promised them Palestine.” By contrast, Islamic truth framings view the Holy Land as sacred to all three Abrahamic religions. They are all “Children of the Book.” Consequently, Islam has had a very long, well documented history of sharing Palestine with both Jews and Christians.[2]”

His note [2] then incorrectly paraphrases a section from the Wikipedia article 'History of the Jews Under Muslim rule' thus:

“2. According to Wikipedia, “Jews under Islamic rule were given the status of dhimmi, along with certain other pre-Islamic religious groups. These non-Muslim groups were nevertheless accorded certain rights and protections as "people of the book". During waves of persecution in Medieval Europe, many Jews found refuge in Muslim lands.”

I'll address his deception in an appendix.

The God excuse

This section will examine the claim made in his first sentence: “Israeli justifications for its occupation, thievery of land and houses, and attacks on Palestinians are based on the belief that God gave the Holy Land to Jews.”

Let's call this the God excuse. It's a common objection usually made by secularists and atheists. It's one I'm very familiar with because I have used this same point in the past to dismiss the Jewish claim to the land. God doesn't exist and a god that doesn't exist cannot choose a people or grant them land. More than that, Moses didn't exist and the stories in the Torah are myths. Case closed. The Jewish claim can be dismissed.

But this is the point at which we run into two inconvenient issues.

1. It's not just the Jews who make this claim, it is also Christians and Muslims.

2. The argument from disbelief is generally only used against Jews and Christians, not against Muslims.

What the Koran says.

The Koran explicitly states that Allah gave Moses (Musa) the Torah (Tawrat). The above quote from Sura 32:23 is one example out of a total of nine. Christians know the Torah as the Pentateuch or the Five Books of Moses, the first five chapters of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

When Islam refers to the 'People of the Book', the book in question is the Torah.

“The example of those who were entrusted with the Torah and then did not take it on is like that of a donkey who carries volumes [of books]. Wretched is the example of the people who deny the signs of Allah. And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.” Surah 62:5

It is estimated that around 25% of the Koran references characters and stories from the Torah. Moses is the most prominent with 136 mentions. Abraham is mentioned 69 times; Noah 43. Whilst there are some differences in detail, the Koran confirms the story of Moses leading the Bani Israel out of Egypt, parting the Red Sea and leading them to the Promised Land.

Given that the Koran unambiguously declares that Moses lead the Bani Israel to the Holy Land how do Muslims justify denying Jews the right to settle in Palestine (establishing a state is a seperate issue)?

There are two distinct moves, which, although they have been used in combination, must be treated separately.

The first is to claim that the Bani Israel of the Koran are a different people to modern, Zionist Jews who are categorised as racially European. In other words, not real Jews.

The second has been the subject of considerable discussion amongst Islamic scholars. Are the passages in the Koran absolute or conditional? The majority view is that they are conditional based on obedience to Allah's commands. Disobedience negates the promise.

As one scholar explains, in "The Promised Land in the Quran":

“As for claiming that the Jews have a right to take Palestine as their promised land, we will say that the verse that reads, “Go into the holy land which Allah has ordained for you.” (Al-Ma`idah 5:21) means that the promise stands so long as the people given this promise abide by Allah's teachings. Once they show disobedience, the promise no longer exists.”

Both of these options begs the question: who decides? Surely it is only Allah who decides who has been obedient or not? And if Allah guides the faithful and shows them signs, wouldn't the victory of the Jews in establishing a state be a sign from Allah?

The obvious answer is that it is the ideologues who decide and they not only accuse Jews and Christians of disobeying Allah by not recognising Mohammed as the final prophet, they go a step further to assert that they have replaced the Jews as the chosen people (and yes, I chose the title of this essay with that irony in mind).

This is clearly stated in article 11 of the Hamas Charter.

“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day.”

The Hypocrites

These questions are easily resolved if you argue that there is no God. God did not lead Moses to the Promised Land, Jesus is not the Son of God and the Archangel Gabriel did not recite the Koran to Mohammed. He is not the final prophet and he did not take the Night Journey to Al-Aqsa and ascend to the highest heaven. Abraham and Ishmael did not build the Kaaba. Palestine is not an Islamic Waqf, the land cannot be consecrated and there is no Judgement Day. In fact, there are no future messiahs, Second Comings or divine interventions of any kind.

This is where we arrive at what I consider a glaring hypocrisy. Whilst the pro-Palestinian left are quick to dismiss the religious beliefs of Jews and Christians (and others), they are reluctant to criticise Islam for making essentially the same claims. Marx famously declared that religion is the opiate of the people and offered a savage critique of how religion is used to oppress the masses. This should apply equally to Islam, but it isn't. In my essay Strange Bedfellows I examined the central role of Socialist Alternative in organising the Australian pro-Palestinian movement. SA has members from the Jewish, Christian and Muslim communities. The Jewish and Christian members have rejected their faith - as true Marxists should - but some key Muslim members have not.

Why is Islam the exception to Marxist atheism?

The answer is crude in its simplicity. Judaism and Christianity are associated with Western imperialism and Muslims have been positioned as victims of Western imperialism.

The enemy of my enemy is my ally and we don't want to upset our allies (who we hope will help us overthrow the imperialist Judeo-Christian West).

Invoking Ilan Pappé

Returning to Dillard's quote:

“Due to a belief in divine law and also a belief that it supersedes human law, Zionists claim Palestine is their birthright. This is ironic. The Israeli historian Ilan Pappe has observed, ‘Most Zionists don't believe that God exists, but they do believe that he promised them Palestine.’”

This is dishonest on both Dillard's and Ilan Pappé's part (who actually knows better). What Dillard chooses to ignore is that the Zionist claim is not exclusively based on divine law. Jewish culture, like all cultures, is a mix of mythologised and real history. There really was a Jewish kingdom that was conquered by the Seleucid Greeks and then by the Romans. The five day festival of Hanukkah marks the defeat of the Greeks by the Maccabees in 168 BCE.

Of course Dillard quotes Pappé, the favourite, go-to New Historian of the pro-Palestinian left, because Pappé is an anti-Zionist leftist. This itself is not a problem, it simply identifies his ideological allegiance.

What is a problem is that he has admitted that he's more concerned about ideology than discovering the truth. An alarming admission for a historian.

“I admit that my ideology influences my historical writings... Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truthseekers.”

The truth that Pappé is trying to hide for ideological reasons is that there are different Zionist factions: Labour, Revisionist and Religious, representing the full spectrum from the zealots of the far-right to the atheist far-left. Obviously Religious and Revisionist Zionists believe God gave them the land of Israel, but it is simply untrue, as Dillard wants to imply, that all Zionists believe this. Secular and Liberal Zionists base their claim on Jewish history.

And what is that history? A Canaanite tribe began to differentiate from other Canaanite tribes over centuries to become a distinct culture known as the Hebrews (which is supported by both the genetic and archaeological evidence). The Hebrews rose in power to form the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Following the pattern of ME geopolitical competition, the Hebrews were challenged by rival powers, most notably the Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans and lastly, Arabs.

Those Canaanite tribes that did not join the Hebrews were gradually absorbed into other cultures. Some converted to Christianity. And when Islam arrived, they converted to Islam. All traces of Canaanite language and culture disappeared. The only thing that remained were the genetic markers they shared with Jews.

The theme of exile and return, persecution and triumph, is a defining aspect of Jewish cultural identity.

God has nothing to do with it. It's history.

Islamic truth framings

Dillard continues with his most contradictory claim of all.

“By contrast, Islamic truth framings view the Holy Land as sacred to all three Abrahamic religions. They are all “Children of the Book.”

'Truth framings'? Surely he means ideological bias?

Note how he shifts from rejecting the Zionist's religious claims to accepting Islam's claim that it is indeed the Holy Land after all and 'sacred' to all three Abrahamic religions?

Here we have a clear example of my previous point, that the regressive left are hypocrites. They ridicule Jewish religious claims whilst accepting Islamic religious claims.

A happy coexistence?

“Consequently, Islam has had a very long, well documented history of sharing Palestine with both Jews and Christians.”

Well yes, the history of Palestine is well documented but I wouldn't use the word sharing. This implies generosity. How is invading the Byzantine province of Palaestina Prima an act of sharing?

Let's be clear. There was no Islam before 610 CE. Palestine was ruled by the Eastern Roman Empire with a population consisting of a majority of Greek and Aramaic speaking Christians alongside Jewish, Samaritan and polytheist minorities.

The Islamic invasion was an act of aggressive colonialist expansion, nothing more. In the following centuries the region underwent a steady process of Arabisation and conversion to Islam with Christians, Jews and Samaritans relegated to second-class status as dhimmi.

Islam appropriated the Temple Mount and denied Jews and Christians access.

That's not sharing. That is dominating.

Neither the Jews or Christians were happy about being under Muslim rule and as history shows, Christians attempted to retake Palestine and Jerusalem several times.

Ever heard of the Crusades?

Appendix: a deliberate misrepresentation

At the beginning of this essay I quoted Dillard's note 2.

Dillard paraphrases the section and deliberately leaves out passages that contradict his preferred 'truth framing'.

Here is the section in full.

“Under Islamic rule, Jews, along with Christians and certain other pre-Islamic monotheistic religious groups, were considered “People of the Book” and given the status of dhimmi (Arabic: ذِمّيّ 'of the covenant'), which granted them certain rights while imposing specific obligations and restrictions. The treatment of Jews varied significantly depending on the period and location. For example, during the Almohad period in North Africa and Spain, Jews faced harsh persecution and were forced to convert to Islam, flee, or face severe consequences. In contrast, during waves of persecution in medieval Europe, many Jews found refuge in Muslim lands where conditions were comparatively more tolerant during certain eras, such as in the Ottoman Empire, where many Jews living in Spain migrated to after the expulsion of Jews from Spain.”

Here is Dillard's edited version.

“Jews under Islamic rule were given the status of dhimmi, along with certain other pre-Islamic religious groups. These non-Muslim groups were nevertheless accorded certain rights and protections as "people of the book". During waves of persecution in Medieval Europe, many Jews found refuge in Muslim lands.”

When describing dhimmi note that he leaves out the words 'while imposing specific obligations and restrictions'.

Anyone who has studied the institution of dhimmi understands that these obligations and restrictions could be quite severe. The application of the dhimmi laws varied from region to region and from ruler to ruler, with some being lenient and others very strict. Whatever the case the intent of the laws was to humiliate Christians and Jews and remind them that they had been conquered and were Muslim subjects. It rendered them second-class citizens with limited rights. In the most severe cases, to use a modern term, it created a system of apartheid.

Here is a quote from the Jerusalem Quarterly published by the Institute of Palestinian Studies (a recognised, independent Arab organisation established in Beirut in 1963 - with an office in Ramallah).

“The word 'dhimmi' is used to describe a Christian or Jew who, as a member of the 'People of the Book' (Ahl al-Kitab), was 'joined' or 'attached' to the Muslim community by accepting its political 'protection' and sovereignty. A dhimmi, as a Jew or Christian subject, by virtue of the fact that he was not a member of the umma, had no obligation to serve in the military. The payment of the jizya—the capitation tax—assured the dhimmi of his right to live in the Ottoman Empire, although clearly not as a political, social, or religious equal to the Muslims of the empire.”

Now imagine the outcry if Muslims in Christian countries or Israel were expected to pay a special tax and submit to a system in which they were 'clearly' not treated as 'political, social or religious equals'?

Let's look at another deliberate omission:

“For example, during the Almohad period in North Africa and Spain, Jews faced harsh persecution and were forced to convert to Islam, flee, or face severe consequences.”

Is Dillard trying to avoid admitting that Jews periodically faced persecution and pogroms under Muslim rule?

Why is he presenting such a sanitised version?

He also leaves out these qualifying words:

“…many Jews found refuge in Muslim lands where conditions were comparatively more tolerant during certain eras…”

They were never completely tolerant, they were 'comparatively more' tolerant. In other words - degrees of persecution.

A few examples:

• In 1033 in Fez, Morocco, a mob massacred around 6,000 Jews. Massacres were repeated in 1276 and 1465.

• In 1066 a Muslim mob in Granada massacred most of the Jewish population.

• In 1244 Muslim Khwarazmian Tartars, allies of the Ayyubid Sultan of Egypt, sacked Jerusalem, massacring around 6,000 Christians and expelling all the Jews.

• In 1679 the Jews of Mawza, Yemen were banished to an arid, desert region, where a third died of starvation.

• In 1839 in Alladad, Iran, 35 Jews were killed and around 2,400 forced to convert to Islam.

• In 1948 the Jordanian army seized eastern Jerusalem, and guess what? Expelled the Jews from the historic Jewish Quarter.

History repeats. Exile and return. Exile and return. Exile and return.

Concluding words

The real sin of the Zionists is that they refused to accept dhimmi status; refused to be ruled by Muslims. The Palestinian Arabs were outraged by their impudence. During the Nebi Musa riots of 1920 they ran through the streets attacking Jews, defiantly shouting 'the Jews are our dogs', a racist slogan still chanted at some modern pro-Palestine protests.

As for Dillard and his regressive left comrades, the sin of the Zionists is to be allies of the West.