Behind all force is the Balfour Resolution to create a Zionist state in Palestine. This is what the English intended to do, with force. Obviously, no effort was made to 'reason' with the huge Islamic majority--it obviously would have done no good.

Hence, an uprising  in 1930 against England, and the rise of Muftis who sided with Germany. 'Funny thing, unkind things were said of the jews.

The next major event was the flood of european jewish refugees, then independence, then displacement, which caused the wars of 48, 56, 68, 74...none to speak of. recently, because the USSR is gone.  Only the option of terrorism exists.

It's therefore prima facie absurd to talk of reason when one's land (property) is being taken away. Objectivists should be the first to see this.

EM

The Balfour Letter did not spring from the earth out of all context; the Ottoman Empire sided with the Germans in WWI, lost a global conflict, as well as control over their once colonies.  A war weary West carved up the region, failed to recogniz undefeated men on horseback riding around dunes, and half assedly impressed a tired modernity on the unwilling vestiges of the dark ages.

But the original complaint in 1925 of the Muslim high council in Jerusalem was not 'they are taking our land!'  The original complaint was "The Jews are buying our land!' -- at prices not even the sellers could afford.   That is some local senitiment to get behind; "Too many Jews buying land in the 'hood."

The result was the '29 Hebron massacre, and an escalating local crap fight of violent tit for tat.   The goal of British Mandate Palestine was not the state of Isreal.   The goal was Palestine, where, just as in America at exactly the same time, Jews emigrated from an tribally insane Europe, where collectivist furor had succeeded in unfettering the tribe for its latest bloodletting.  In America, Jews and Arabs built their homes in the same communities-- because the KKK sensibilities of "Too many Jews buying land in the hood' were at least subdued.   In BM Palestine, that fine sentiment was entrenched inside the Muslim High Council.

The defensive state of Israel resulted only after WWII, long after Balfour, but directly after the entire world had demonstrated that it barely gave a flying crap about the Jews, and they were on their own in this world, as it is, to defned themselves from KKK sensibilities.    So I repeat the Maxwell's demon analyis above; how is it that European Jews leaving those docks in Europe for America and Palestine managed to send all the land stealing baby killers to Palestine, and all the reasonable peace loving Jews to America, where they live in peace next to Muslims and Arabs and even the odd Welsheman doing the same?  Was there an amazing 'Maxwell's Demon' at those docks, sifting humanity, that made it impossible for Jews to assimilate in Palestine as they have in America, or, once they emigrate, can they do nothing but steal land and so on, on their way to America's 51st state (Boca Raton, maybe?) 

So why is it an almost autoresponse that the American left finds iteslf aligned with the interests of the Jew haters in this conflict?   Because in this conflict,  Muslims=poor and Jews= rich, and poor vs. rich dominates any consideration of KKK sensibilities.   

It is automatic, a given.   And, the reason that the history of the conflict largely ignores its roots.

Ataturk saw the writing on the wall, with regards to modernity, and brought Turkey along out of the ashes of the former Ottoman Empire.   But the former Ottoman colonies, ringing the Med, were left in chaos, and modernity is still having a hard time convincing the dark agers-- the Old Men in Robes rolling their eyes over the dusty ashes of the prophet--  to call it a day.  From Libya to the Balkans, same story.  Former Ottoman colonies, hair on fire over the 'sudden' arrival of modernity.  "What!  Nobody told us!"

A war weary west in BM Palestine was saying, "Really?  We need to actually prove the point with you folks?  The war is over.  Seriously?  Modern up already. Get along.  Modernity has a party it wants to throw, these sad echos from the days before domination by the Ottoman Empire, and land claims from 800 years ago, are just bullshit.   Build some schools.  Get busy. Trade with your neighbors, don't murder them.  Buy a damn clue already.  Look at the Pope; he lives in Disneyland, we gave him a nice car.  He wears funny hats and waves.  Everyone is happily getting busy.  He's harmless.  No more Crusades  Do the same with your Old Men in Robes.   Disneyfy them.   Imagine the buses pulling into Animatronic HolyLand full of laughing kids.  Sure beats the living hell out of blowing up those same busses loaded with kids over the dusty bones of the prophet and the One True Religion..."

Michael,

Yes, issues can indeed be made more complex to the point of obfuscation. that's why 'obfuscation means "muddying the waters".

The Objectivist definition of 'property' is correctly based upon usufruct. This corresponds to what one is taught in Anthropology 101. Yet because the devil is always in the details, 'usufruct' means something totally different between the two.

Anhropology seeks to define the how's of a particular society's use that's  based somewhat upon first- principle 'cultural relativism". This means, first, define and describe the world of the actors thru their own eyes.

For example, in the case of both Native American and Palestinian feyadeen,  'property' takes on an ecological sense of preservation. Non-use is saving for the future.

We don't cut down trees because we enoy our own culture that involves hunting. Trees are likewise protected in the Levant for reasons of soil preservation in a thin-soild environmet. Etcetera.

In most cultures, land is said to be inalienable. It belongs to the village (feyad/fellah), not for sale by the user.

That Rand(ites) may see this as 'primitive' and usufruct-challenged will pass without futher comment. Assuming interest of discussion (surely not mine!), this is precisely what should go into 'Dissent" because it really is a strong disagreement for both normals and fissiles alike.

I will, however, offer two tangental comments:

* There's a popular assumption that military superiority equals cultural advancement. In this scenario, the more-advanced always win because it's...'Evolutionary!'

Then when Attila, Gengis, and Vietnam are tossed into the picture, the assumers cry "Exception!" Or, "It's really unfair to characterize Johnson as semi-literate white trash, and Uncle Ho as urbane,intellectual, and educated. Texans can be civilived, too!"

** Germans believed that Jews were culturally and racially inferor, hence justifiably exterminated. Taking the land of others always needs a justification, yes? Gengis and the Mongols strongly believed that hoes harm mother earth, therefore farmers of all ethnos shoud be killed to make room for pasturage. Mongol civ in terms of Mongol values in terms of mongol economics..

Eva

(Edited by Matthews on 2/03, 6:16pm)

Eva,

"Rand(ites)" or "Randians" are taken by Objectivists as condescending and a kind of name-calling.   Much better to just say "Objectivists" unless your purpose to annoy or denounce.  Just saying.

Eva:

"In most cultures, land is said to be inalienable. It belongs to the village (feyad/fellah), not for sale by the user."

So tribal non-land owners(who do not recognize such a thing) did not see as legitimate Palestinians selling land to Jews.  And the rational response was, accuse the Jews of stealing land?    Rule of the tribal dumbasses, not rule of law.    

Well, the basis for conflict is clear then.   Local tribal dumbasses vs. local modern-moderates embracing modernity.   Like much of the world removed from the thin resort crust that jaunty tourists call 'out of the country.'.

You've been to Turkey?   Fantastic.    I've done business there, in Israel, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bangladesh, and lots of other places in the world, as a defense contractor.   So, can't wait to hear more of your impressions of Turkey.

regards,

Fred

Said Palestinian dumbasses maintained their own culture and language, as did said dumbasses in Egypt, Greece, Macadonia, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia, not to mention Kurdistan, Azerbajan..etc.

Why am I  talking on line to someone who calls an entire group of people 'dumbasses? Sounds pretty much like what others call Americans...

BTW, 'tribal' refers to an extended familial group that somewhat lives together. That Palestinians still demonstrate 'tribal' relations is a testament to the strength of their culture. 

Oh, brother...

Yeah, some pretty strange stuff.  I was going to write a response, but his post was such a hodge podge of disconnected statements, I couldn't detect any kind of a unifying theme.  So, Christopher, could you state in a single sentence, the main point of your post?  That would certainly help.

As Ayaan Hirsi Ali notes, Islam needs a reformation.  She identifies "five precepts central to Islam that have made it resistant to historical change and adaptation. Only when the harmfulness of these ideas are recognized and they are repudiated will a true Muslim Reformation have been achieved."

Here are the five areas that require amendment:

1. Muhammad’s semi-divine status, along with the literalist reading of the Quran.
Muhammad should not be seen as infallible, let alone as a source of divine writ. He should be seen as a historical figure who united the Arab tribes in a premodern context that cannot be replicated in the 21st century. And although Islam maintains that the Quran is the literal word of Allah, it is, in historical reality, a book that was shaped by human hands. Large parts of the Quran simply reflect the tribal values of the 7th-century Arabian context from which it emerged. The Quran’s eternal spiritual values must be separated from the cultural accidents of the place and time of its birth.

2. The supremacy of life after death.
The appeal of martyrdom will fade only when Muslims assign a greater value to the rewards of this life than to those promised in the hereafter.

3. Shariah, the vast body of religious legislation.
Muslims should learn to put the dynamic, evolving laws made by human beings above those aspects of Shariah that are violent, intolerant or anachronistic.

4. The right of individual Muslims to enforce Islamic law.
There is no room in the modern world for religious police, vigilantes and politically empowered clerics.

5. The imperative to wage jihad, or holy war.
Islam must become a true religion of peace, which means rejecting the imposition of religion by the sword.

I know that this argument will make many Muslims uncomfortable. Some are bound to be offended by my proposed amendments. Others will contend that I am not qualified to discuss these complex issues of theology and law. I am also afraid—genuinely afraid—that it will make a few Muslims even more eager to silence me.

But this is not a work of theology. It is more in the nature of a public intervention in the debate about the future of Islam. The biggest obstacle to change within the Muslim world is precisely its suppression of the sort of critical thinking I am attempting here. If my proposal for reform helps to spark a serious discussion of these issues among Muslims themselves, I will consider it a success.

Let me make two things clear. I do not seek to inspire another war on terror or extremism—violence in the name of Islam cannot be ended by military means alone. Nor am I any sort of “Islamophobe.” At various times, I myself have been all three kinds of Muslim: a fundamentalist, a cocooned believer and a dissident. My journey has gone from Mecca to Medina to Manhattan.

For me, there seemed no way to reconcile my faith with the freedoms I came to the West to embrace. I left the faith, despite the threat of the death penalty prescribed by Shariah for apostates. Future generations of Muslims deserve better, safer options. Muslims should be able to welcome modernity, not be forced to wall themselves off, or live in a state of cognitive dissonance, or lash out in violent rejection.

But it is not only Muslims who would benefit from a reformation of Islam. We in the West have an enormous stake in how the struggle over Islam plays out. We cannot remain on the sidelines, as though the outcome has nothing to do with us. For if the Medina Muslims win and the hope for a Muslim Reformation dies, the rest of the world too will pay an enormous price—not only in blood spilled but also in freedom lost.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-reformation-for-islam-1426859626