To Mr. Riaz - Consider yourself rebuked

Submitted by Michel C. Zala (Switzerland), Jun 21, 2011 at 10:52

Dear Mr. Riaz,

Pipes himself with is latest article refuted your entire structure of arguments better than I ever could.

I will constrain myself here to revisit the 2 states solution only. Since Jerusalem was indeed one of the most besieged, invaded, occupied cities in history, the holy sites of 3 religions literally sit on top of one another. While Christians only want free access to woreship, muslims and jews claim the territory for themselves fiercely. Since historical legitimacy< is a futile argument, as the place has changed hands so many times, we can only look at the status quo and beyond. Hamas and islamists will not consider acknowledging Israel's right to exist and Israel will not negotiate with anyone who promotes the destruction of the nation. Neither will ever give an inch in regard to Jerusalem, as both their holiest sites are located there. Both states want Jerusalem and will never compromise.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion is to have one nation with equal citizens and free access to their holy sites. Jerusalem as capital of this nation, comprised of jews and arabs. This one democratic nation would be economically viable and sustainable, as opposed to a Palestinian State plus Enclave Gaza, which can never survive on its own and would have to be funded for ever by other muslim nations.

Since this one nation would be comprised of arabs and jews with equal democratic rights, other hardliner nations, such as Syrians or Iranians would run out of reasons to obstruct a nation of many muslims plus jews, especially, if this nation gave free access to the holy sites in Jerusalem to all, inclusive Muslims.

And, by the way, there is no such thing as Palestinians, even if the Brits issued Palestinian Passeports. Nobody even talked about such a people, before Arafat created the notion of such. While the name existed indeed for a region, it never meant a clearly defined nation with a border and a specific people, whereas the jews can certainly point to such way down in history. Heck the Romans called the Province Judea. At that historically well described and documented time, there was no such thing as Palestinians. Later, during the fight between Salahaddin and the Crusaders, noone spoke of Palestinians, only of Judea. During the Ottomans, was there ever any notion of Palestinians? But did even the Ottomans know Jews living in and around Jerusalem? Throughout history, Jerusalem was considered the capital of the Jews, even, if during arab invasions and the Ottomans later, the territory was occupied by muslims. Muslims up to this day pride themselves as having been tolerant to the Jews living there, citing the Quran often, where Jews are being depicted as cousins or brothers with at times the same prophets.....

Does the Quran itself speak of Palestinians? Nope, but he speaks of Jews as a people.

In conclusion, the people of the jews are well documented, even in muslim scripture, going back many thousand years, whereas the Palestinian People were never mentioned until the mid 20th century.

Can you refute that?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".