From: davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Organization: Technion, Israel Inst. of Technology
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 16:59:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.060713.23775@mcs.kent.edu> rayes@Snake.mcs.kent.edu (Sandra Rayes) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.205819.10064@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep11.073925.3382@mcs.kent.edu> rayes@Snake.mcs.kent.edu (Sandra Rayes) writes:
>>>>
>>>Baloney....it is mentioned in the Qur'an...Prophet Muhammad visited
>>>there and many Muslims from the Sham and even further used to go there
>>>in lieu of Hajj in Mecca (since they didn't have money and Jerusalem
>>>was closer).  Al Aqsa is tied with the BEST personalities in Islamic
>>>history.  I have met a lady who was educated there (pre '67).
>>
>>As with every institution, there are good and bad personalities
>>associated with al Aqsa.  (Can anyone say Hajj Amin al-Husseini, for
>>example?) This is not to discount its importance in
>>Islam, just for perspective.  In any case, I was under the impression
>>that it was the Mount itself which is mentioned in the Qu'ran, and that
>>al-Aqsa dates from something like 50-100 years later.  Minor quibble.
>>
>The Qur'an *specifically* says Al-Aqsa...
>
>"Subhana-ladhi 'isra bi'abdihi laylan min al masjid al haram ila
>al MASJID AL AQSA...
>meaning: Praise to Him (God) to took his servant (Muhammad) on a
>journey by night from the Mosque of the Sanctuary (or Sacred Mosque,
>the one in Mecca) to the Mosque of Al Aqsa (Jerusalem).
>
>Perhaps, now you can realize why it is so important to Muslims.  Our
>tradition of the Prophet's Isra and Miraj (Journey and Ascension), which
>took place during our holiest month, Ramadhan, left us Muslims with
>the sanctuary of prayer...  This is in the Prophet's life, and later
>on 'Umar ibn al-Khattab visited Jerusalem.
>	
>>>Throwing out and retrieving convenient slogans is your trick, not ours.
>>>Palestinians have always stressed their love for their land and culture.
>>>Palestinians were traditionally peaceful (at a time when other Arabs
>>>were fighting) and settled farmers who enjoyed their pace of life and
>>>were blessed by the proximity of Al Aqsa, a holy site in Islam.
>>>That has never changed.  What has changed is the fact that Europeans
>>>have taken their land from them, treated them like animals, and
>>>assigned to them the role of victim.
>>
>>Sandra, while now this definitely makes a lot of sense to a lot of
>>people, even those such as Rashid Khalidi have stressed that the
>>resurgence of Jewish nationalism - i.e. Zionism - triggered a huge
>>upswing in Palestinian nationalism, and that Palestinian nationalism,
>>such as it was, had its origins during the early part of this century
>>(Jacob Baltuch posted some excellent information on this several months
>>ago, which I unfortunately did not save).
>
>As I said, the Palestinians were a settled lot, comfortable with their
>ways, and before Zionism were unthreatened by the outside.  There would
>have been no need for any upswing of "Palestinian Nationalism".
>
>And remember, Eric, nationalism is an invention of the West.  Before
>nationalism, the Arabs were all united under one Muslim state.  Their
>idea of nationalism did not extend beyond their qabilahs (tribes, I
>believe).  You cannot think of Mid Eastern ideology with a Western
>mind...you will never make sense of it if you do.
>									

Indeed, the insertion of an Arab nation in Plaestine is a ridiculous
idea and should be abandoned. There is no reason to invent nationalities   
if there is only one Arab people. Let the Arab brethren of the Palestinians
adopt them and stop the endless hatred and offensive against the jews.

If there is one arab nation why should the Arab insist on the formation
of a 22nd state. They have LOTS of area and resources to resettle the
Plaestinians. If Arafat's mother could move to Palestine and adopt the
"Palestinian identity" her son can do the same thing in the opposite
direction.

Herzl's "European mob" as you put it (well rephrasing a bit :-) had
no place to return to - We cannot adopt Polish/German/Russian identity.
The Jews tried to assimilate in Europe - they got the most horrible
rejection there is. WE CANNOT RETURN TO AUSCHWITZ - Palestinian can 
be assimilate with no hassle at all in the Arab world - they bring 
relatiovely educated and good manpower to their hosts and they are
no different from the Syrians/Iraqis/Kuwaitis than local differences
in the respective countries. Palestinians HAD/HAVE MULTIPLE ALTERNATIVES
but they chose the one that is most harmful to themselves and to their
neighbors (Jews and Arabs) - demanding Yet another Arab State in Palestine
and sending the Jews back to Europe.

>>
>>For centuries Palestine was ruled by the Ottomans - and under their rule
>>*no one*, not Jews, not Armenians, not Kurds, and not Arabs, expressed
>>much in the way of nationalistic feelings there.  Other parts of the ME
>>weren't ruled by the Ottoman Empire for so long - and therefore their
>>history reflects different characteristics.
>
>Not correct.  Nearly ALL of the Arabic-speaking world was unified under
>the Ottoman Empire.  But again, you are analyzing this through Western
>eyes and nationalizing this.  There was no nationalism.  I used to do
>this also, until I realized that the Mid East mind does not think the
>way a Western mind does.  My husband is from Northern Africa.  His
>country was also under the Ottoman rule until Europe colonized N. Africa.
>And this is where my husband starts his condemnation.  So once I said to
>him (remember I too am a Westerner with the nationalist mentality that
>comes with it): "How come you complain about France and Italy, but you
>don't complain about Turkey...that's not fair...Turks aren't Arabs and
>they occupied your country".  My husband said "Aha...there's where
>your western nationalism ideology goes wrong.  For us, we accept the
>Turks because they were MUSLIMS and started out with a MUSLIM state.
>Arab or non-Arab--it makes no difference to us".
>
>The point is, Palestine, although completely Arab, was part of a Muslim
>empire.  Although everyone realized there were regional differences,
>the Arab states were a "federation" of sorts, unified under the Ottoman
>rule.  But that certainly didn't make Palestine (which is what the
>rest of the Empire called that region) less Palestinian.  I believe it
>is nationalism which has been the scourge of the Arab world and Arab
>politics.  May Allah curse Nasser for picking it up and popularizing it.
>
They called it "South Syria" , not Palestine. The Arabs themselves
called themsleves "South Syrians". There was indeed no seperate Palestininian
identity till this century - It is most likely that if Herzl wouldn't
have picked Erez Israel. it would have been part of Syria. in the lack
of the interest of the Jews and no bone to make over inventing a new
nation - the South Syrians were a very backward part of Syria.

>Sandra.

David.
-- 
=============================================================================
  David Ben-Ami (irc: bigdav)      |   "I can resist anything but Temptation"
  s2780369@Techst02.Technion.Ac.Il |       Oscar Wilde
  davidba@Carmel.Technion.Ac.Il  davidba@Moav.Techniona.Ac.Il
Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:19847 talk.politics.soviet:7836 soc.culture.greek:8742 soc.culture.europe:8297 soc.history:8183