The anniversary of the events in Gaza that led to the chain of letters starting
in January 2009 is coming up. Since the Gazette, in its wisdom, did not
publish my response to the personal accusations made by Mr. DeBoskey of Anti-Defamation
League of Denver in his letter of July 3, 2009, this anniversary is a reminder
and an opportunity to set the record straight, at least in the blog. The
letter by Mr. DeBoskey appears to have been written at the behest of someone in
Colorado Springs, without knowledge of the background and context in which my letters
in response to his co-religionists, Nimrod and Berson, were framed. He also seems
to not have read Durland's "Israel to blame in Mideast" letter of May
21, 2009, and not even the complete text of my response, basing his statements
on just the second paragraph.
His choice of adjectives in describing my words is interestingly ironic. Referring to my guest column of June 23, Complexities of Palestinian issue, http://www.gazette.com/opinion/israel-57143-issue-muslims.html, he says, “His use of the words "enslaved," "colonialism" and "occupation" are incendiary.” The real incendiaries were the artillery shells and phosporus that caused the deaths of hundreds of innocent Palestinian women and children during the Israeli attack on Gaza in Jan 2009, which started this chain of letters. By coincidence, the Amnesty report was published on the same day as Mr. DeBoskey's letter, alleging war crimes by both Hamas and Israel.
In previous letters, Mr. DeBoskey's co-religionists claimed to have different and superior standards for good and evil, and justice and injustice. Meaningful discussion is impossible if one group claims something to be good while another considers it evil, hence my challenge to them to define the standards. Mr. DeBoskey did not provide any facts or definitions, or cite international laws, or even religious beliefs, as to why the 1982 invasion of Lebanon was not really an invasion, or why the West Bank and Gaza were not really not occupied and controlled by Israel, or how the Palestinians in occupied West Bank really have the same basic freedoms and rights as Americans like Mr. DeBoskey himself. And without even bothering to understand the background or address the issues, Mr. DeBoskey resorted to accusations.
I referred to those nations that dominated the United Nations in 1948, and who gave the land of the Muslims away to establish Israel, as the “colonial powers”. Muslims are still alive today who remember the brutalities perpetrated in India, Indonesia, Ethiopia, etc. by the colonizing British, Dutch, Italians and French, including the massacre of over a million Algerians in the 1950s by the French to prevent independence of Algeria. So what is the basis for Mr. DeBoskey’s objection to referring to them as “colonial powers”?
The book “From Time Immemorial” by Mary Peters is proffered as proof of the Jews’ historical right to the Holy Lands, though that version of history has been challenged by scholars like Finkelstein, also a Jew. Abraham was not a Jew, and Jewish history in the Holy Lands is not from “time immemorial”, it goes back only to the time of Moses and Joshua, which is only around 1,400 years BCE, and during that period, the land was ruled for centuries by Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Romans. Disregarding the almost two thousand years the Jews were in exile, the period the Jews actually possessed the land is not significantly greater than that of the Muslims, if at all. The claim is made that Jews are entitled to the Holy Lands because the only state in that area was a Jewish state. However, this is because the Jewish state was limited to Palestine, except during Solomon’s reign, while the Ishmaelite Muslims dominated a vast area over three continents for centuries. How does being a weak and limited state become a justification for possession?
One of Mr. DeBoskey co-religionists proclaimed that Israel and America, while imperfect, are the only beacons of goodness in the world (hence incapable of doing any wrong), thus relegating all Muslims, also imperfect, to the domain of evil, (hence incapable of any goodness or justice). Not only is this an insult to Muslims, it also ignores the precepts of Islam of doing good, of tolerance, of justice even to enemies. It ignores the history of the great Muslim civilization, within which Jews, like the greatest Jewish rabbi and reorganizer of the Talmud, Moses Maimonides, thrived in their post-Diaspora Golden Age in Muslim Spain and Egypt.
Those who are imperfect, including Israel, America, and Pakistan, including Jews, Christians and Muslims, can and do commit evil and injustice. Even good people and good nations can make mistakes and do wrong. Aside from the angels, who have no freewill, so are perfectly obedient, and Mary and Jesus, who were sinless and perfectly good, everyone else will make mistakes, and commit sins, with the exception of the prophets who were guided and protected by God. It took America over two centuries, a bloody civil war, and a civil rights movement, to right the wrong of slavery and segregation. The real test of the goodness of people and nations, including Israel, America and Pakistan, is not hollow words claiming infallibility, inerrancy and holiness, but whether they right the wrongs they committed in their imperfection.
Another of Mr. DeBoskey's co-religionists compared the few Nobel prizes won by Jews in the last century with the very few won by Muslims, implying that the Jews deserve the Holy Lands because they are a superior race compared to the inferior Muslims. Not only is this illogical and insulting, that writer seems to be ignorant of the great multi-cultural, multi-ethnic Muslim civilization that dominated the world from around 700 CE till the beginning of its decline in 1500 CE.
The contributions over centuries by thousands of Muslim scholars developed the mathematics, algebra, physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, philosophy etc. that are part of the foundation of the modern Western civilization. Some of these are the very areas of knowledge in which Nobel prizes are awarded. The Muslims created their own unique monotheistic civilization that sprang from a son of Abraham, unlike the pagan Greek and Roman civilizations, while the Jews never had their own civilization, and were only beneficiaries of other civilizations, including the Muslim civilization. Jews like Einstein, due to living in Western Christian countries, benefited from Western Christian educational and scientific institutions, which enabled them to earn Nobel prizes just this last century, while they also suffered horrific persecution from Western Christians for many centuries. Only after independence from colonization in the last sixty or so years have Muslims have begun re-engaging in the Muslim heritage of knowledge and learning.
But is it not ironic that this Jewish writer claims racial superiority for the Jews to give them rights over others? Is he not unwisely following in the footsteps of a leader and nation claiming their own racial superiority to oppress Jews in WWII?
Muslims do not care how Jews interpret the Torah pertaining to their prayer rituals and kosher food etc. However, if some Jews demand that Muslims be observant of verses in the Torah regarding the Holy Lands, and give up Muslim claims to the Holy Lands, then it is presumptuous of those Jews to forbid Muslims from exercising their right to question the Jewish interpretation of those verses. And if the majority of Israeli and American Jews blatantly disregard many of the commandments of the Torah, is it then reasonable to expect Muslims to obey selected verses in the Torah and cede the Holy Lands to the Jews? And have not some Jews and Americans declared open season on the verses of the Quran on jihad, stereotyping and misrepresenting all Muslims in incorrect, insulting ways? So it is acceptable for Jews and Christians to misinterpret the Quran, but not for Muslims to interpret the Torah or Gospel? It is an article of faith for Muslims to believe in the Torah and Gospel in their original, uncorrupted form as God's words; the Quran gives Muslims their correct interpretation, while parts of the Quran are directly addressed to Christians and Jews.
It is the insulting antagonistic statements like those by his co-religionists who, to the best of my knowledge, are not the leaders of the Jewish community in Colorado Springs, nor appointed to speak on its behalf, and those by Mr. DeBoskey himself, that would poison dialog, if there existed meaningful dialog, or even the willingness to dialog.
It is either foolish or deceptive, or both, to represent the Israel-Palestine issue as a mere dispute over land, as Mr. DeBoskey and secular Jews try to misrepresent it. And if Mr.DeBoskey's cares to read his co-religionists letters, it is they who have declared the problem intractable and irresolvable, as it has been for decades, which is because of past approaches to the problem. Mr.DeBoskey offered no new solution himself, other than continuing the antagonistic political and military approaches that have been tried repeatedly for decades and have failed miserably. Those approaches earned Anwar al-Sadat and Menachem Begin the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize, and earned the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize for Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat. But those approaches only led to the assasination of Anwar al-Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin by extremists of their own nationality and faith, without changing the status quo of repeated spirals of short-lived peace, attacks, invasions, and deaths of many civilians on both sides for many decades.
The Israel-Palestine issue is one that would tax the wisdom of Solomon, but since the land is divisible, unlike the baby which both harlots claimed to be their own when they came to Solomon for judgment, it is more tractable. To break the logjam, to end the decades-long stalemate, I had again suggested a breakthrough approach to true peace in the Holy Lands, which seems to have been overlooked by Mr. DeBoskey, or perhaps he simply does not want to accept that approach. The key to resolving the political issue of the ownership of the Holy Lands lies not in politics or war, but in religion. This may seem counterintuitive, even ironic, but it is logical. Since religion is at the core of the problem, as in Northern Ireland, where the problem has remained unresolved in over 80 years, it makes sense that the solution should also be sought in religion. Only through seeking commonality between Judaism and Islam in their common Abrahamic roots, and the brotherhood of the sons of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, can the foundation for true peace be laid. With a foundation of acceptance based on religion, Israel should first seek recognition from all the Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia and Iran. After recognition, secondary issues like a Palestinian state should easily be resolved based on justice for all, which could lead to complete, true and lasting peace in the Holy Lands, if God so wills. There can not be peace without justice, and there can not be justice without applying the precepts of Judaism on one side and Islam on the other, where justice in Islam extends even to enemies. Since it seems that a solution based on commonality and brotherhood in religion is anathema to the secular and extremists on both sides, it is up to the religious moderates on both sides to strive for a just peace. Or we could all just wait for the coming of the Jewish Messiah, the Second Coming of Christ, and the coming of the Mahdi.
If there is a sincere desire for dialog at the religious level, the door is still open, but the responsibility of establishing meaningful dialog in America rests not just on the Muslim but also on the Jewish religious leaders, and preferably not through the pages or blogs of newspapers. And if there can be no meaningful dialog in America, what are the chances of dialog and true peace in the Holy Lands? That really would be, in Mr. DeBoskey’s own words, “tragic and disappointing”, perpetuating the current “divise and ultimately, destructive path” that the players on both sides are on.