Every Muslim should be concerned about the potential destruction of our third holiest site. Lest we forget, Israel came close to doing just that on Aug. 21, 1969, when an Australian fanatic, with close ties to neo-fascist and messianic Jews in Israel, set fire to the pulpit at the mosque in his and his associates’ effort to destroy the whole edifice and ultimately have “Solomon’s Temple restored on the Mount.”

It may also be recalled that the incident so enraged — and later galvanized — the entire Muslim world that a month later a three-day Islamic summit conference was held in Rabat to “deal with the issue of Jerusalem,” which in turn was followed by two meetings in Jeddah of foreign ministers from the Islamic countries in March 1970 and in Karachi in December of the same year. From all that emerged the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), we need an equally muscular response today.

I care more — and not altogether shamefacedly — about the fate of Jerusalem than I do about the fate of asylum seekers knocking on the doors of affluent EU countries. I certainly care more about it than I do about seeing the Palestinian flag fluttering in the wind outside UN headquarters in New York.

http://www.arabnews.com/columns/news/807946

Just to get a sense of this author and where he is coming from.

you make it so costly to the occupier that leaving is the only sensible option.

I don't know how the Palestinians accomplish that with violence. If it is a contest of power, the Israeli's always win that. Intifada's are simply an exercise in frustration and really don't damage Israel that much. In fact, they give Israel an excuse to continue the occupation, but even more brutally. Which Israel will do in a heartbeat.

"Will Israel end the occupation or will the occupation end Israel? Will Israel dismantle its colonies — and go back to its internationally recognized borders of 1947..."

There was no Israel in 1947 with internationally recognized borders.

Need to make cost of staying > cost of withdrawing. One option to make this so is to decrease the cost of withdrawing. How? I will leave that puzzle to the PA to figure out .

If the occupier wants to stay--i.e. wants the territory, decreasing the cost of withdrawing is pointless. The only way that occurs is to cede the territory. The PA has already figured that out and rightfully rejects it.

Last edited Sat Oct 24, 2015, 10:08 PM - Edit history (1)

There are two sides to the equation. The Israeli government considers withdrawing to be taking a big risk because they fear the emergence of a heavily armed extremist neighbor who is hell-bent on a war to the death on the border with Jerusalem and a few miles from Tel Aviv, airport etc. or at the very least a deliberate base for organized terror activity. Much like happened when they withdrew from Lebanon and from Gaza. Some signals of desiring peace would be a good start. Helpful outsiders like yourself who tell the PA they don't have to show any interest in peace are actually keeping peace further away. If the Israeli public believed a Palestinian state would be a peaceful neighbor, the majority would support it and the extremist minority would be completely marginalized. Helpful outsiders are actually helping the Israeli extremists. Although I suppose if the helpful outsiders are able to bring about an all-out civil war, all bets are off - I believe it would be bad for all involved, but I am not so helpful as you.

You're so good that some of the time it flies over others heads. You've got the gift of wit as well. I always look forward to your posts.

The thesis determines the narrative.

Same wish for thousands of years .

Explicitly supporting violence against civilians.

The Palestianians are seeing their own people - other Muslim countries - turning their backs on the Syrians refugees and know they can expect the same - absolutely nothing. It's been a very rude awakening for many. The American and European left wings are seemingly incapable of not stepping on their own feet on this issue. Israel is not going anywhere and this opinion piece is absolute crap.

and ranting. Could have been written while Arafat was living in Beirut.

Zionism is a failing ideology because it's essentially a hybrid of 19th century European-style nationalism and Middle Eastern-style tribalism. Combining two outdated modes of thinking doesn't produce something that's ready for the modern world. Jewish nationalism turns out to be no more enlightened than Russian nationalism, Serbian nationalism, etc.

The institutions that were set up have done an admirable job keeping it afloat, but gravity always wins.

And always with de Toqueville, like he is the touchstone for the Western political intellectual. And the French Revolution. If I was one of the many Arab despots I would not bring up the French Revolution.

It is clever propaganda is what it is, written by a Westernized source, who knew to throw all that US patriotic stuff in.

Said Arab despots will be happy to dance on Israel's grave, should there be one, they are out for themselves and always have been.

That is one thing Putin gets better than we do, they are his kind of people.

Nationalism is a secular cult in which the state is the object of worship, very convenient when one must give up the deity as the source of ones power. But it is always unrealistic, governments worthy of worship are rare to begin with, and don't last long.

We are a sorry lot when it comes to self-governance, we are. Not very good at it, as individuals or collectively.

of fascism. Probably unsurprising considering they are close relatives.

"Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made."

They have to control everything, that's why they call it totalitarianism. What particular dogmas they adopt and defend depends on their prejudices, but the totalitarian methods adopted to protect that dogma are all old as the hills and just as obvious.

Yes, we do agree about that.

Edit: And I do like Mr. Berlin.

Step 1 is to elevate one group above all others. Step 2 is to elevate the state into the sanctified role of ensuring that this group remains elevated above all others.

Scylla and Charybdis.

Whenever somebody starts going on about the negative characteristics of large abstract categories of people, I start to smell something foul.

"The divine right of me to get what I want" is what that usually turns out to be.