UNESCO, the West Bank and the Tree of Life
This is a guest post by Matt Hill
Since UNESCO made the ’state’ of Palestine its 194th member last month, press coverage has focussed on the move’s political implications. The UN culture agency may be feeling a little cash-strapped right now – a US law automatically defunds any international body that admits Palestine – but it will want to prove the decision was more than a diplomatic stunt. And I have just the job for that purpose.
Down at the bottom of the world, just outside the West Bank town ofJericho, lies an early Muslim archeological wonder. Hisham’s Palace was an 8th century Umayyad ruler’s winter retreat until an earthquake destroyed it. Its stunning ruins contain the exquisite ‘Tree of Life’ mosaic, a mysterious depiction of a lion attacking a deer under a mythical tree – making it a priceless rarity in representation-averse Islamic art.
And it’s covered in shit.When I visited the site this summer, it had plainly been subject to years of disregard. The Global Heritage Fund has listed it as one of twelve historic treasures that, if we don’t act now, we’re in danger of losing forever. It’s precisely such emergencies that make UNESCO too important for US political subterfuge.
The seeming absence of management means anyone could stroll in and help themselves to a serving of ancient palace. Though this makes for an exciting visit – you can wander amongst toppled pillars and arches, running your fingers along the weathered sandstone – it’s not just tourists who enjoy such easy access. Among other signs of damage to the complex, the celebrated mosaic is thickly caked in avian effluent.
Unlike some of Palestine’s other historical treasures – like the Cave of the Patriarchs at Hebron, not to mention the Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem – Hisham’s Palace is in West Bank Area A, which, in Oslo-speak, means it’s under Palestinian jurisdiction. In other words its scandalous state (imagine leaving a Rembrandt out for a few hours in Trafalgar Square) is entirely the fault of the Palestinian Authority. There’s no blaming the Zionists for this one.
The PA’s deplorable neglect of Hisham’s Palace could, sadly, stand as a metaphor for its leadership of the Palestinian people. Since it was formed in 1994 – to oversee and legitimise Israel’s occupation, many argue – it’s become a global byword for corruption. In the fat years after Oslo, it allowed countless millions – donated by the international community to ahalf-refugee population – to be pocketed by shameless officials. The roads into major West Bank towns are flagrantly vulgarised by the mansions of middling bureaucrats and ’security contractors’, parasites on human misery.
Even those who think the occupation is a necessary evil can see the suffering it causes. But let nobody deny the role of the Palestinians’ own leaders in compounding it.
Fittingly, some believe the ‘Tree of Life’ tableau symbolises good and bad government. The Palestinians have had plenty of the latter, but UNESCO can play a small part in undoing its damage by restoring the mosaic to its former magnificence.
What’s more, the deed would carry its own quiet symbolism: of a world uniting to help a nation rise up out of its ruins.
Comments
| 21 November 2011, 5:13 pm |
Its stunning ruins contain the exquisite ‘Tree of Life’ mosaic, a mysterious depiction of a lion attacking a deer under a mythical tree – making it a priceless rarity in representation-averse Islamic art.
Well, sort of – unless you take into account the meadows, date palms, streams running by classical villas all depicted on the mosaics of the similarly old and Umayyad Great Mosque in Damascus. Then there are the equally aged if more abstract mosaics of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, itself an Umayyid construction.
All laboured over by a mostly Christian community of craftsmen who communicated onto the walls, ceilings and domes of the buildings for their new, Umayyad Muslim masters in a language they knew best.
Islamic puritan tendencies in the visual arts were always there, but became dominant later. These marvelous Umayyad structures attest to that which was later set aside.
| 21 November 2011, 5:17 pm |
What makes Hisham’s Palace special is that its mosaics occur in a non-religious setting. They as much illustrate a continuity between the style of the late Hellenistic country house of a Byzantine worthy and the pleasure palaces of early medieval Muslim Arab rulers in Syria.
| 21 November 2011, 5:18 pm |
I salute your evidently superior knowledge – but I didn’t say it was unique, just rare. Interesting comment though, thanks.
| 21 November 2011, 5:18 pm |
“There’s no blaming the Zionists for this one.”
What an ascription to use in the context of governance in the occupied territorities. “Zionists” and not the “Israeli government”.
For the record, the Israeli authorities are respectful of antiquities, whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim or whatever. Allegations from the Palestinians about Israel carrying on activities that endanger sites like the Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock have invariably been proven false.
What an asshole you are, Mattie, even when you are trying to prove you aren’t.
| 21 November 2011, 5:19 pm |
“Unlike some of Palestine’s other historical treasures – like the Cave of the Patriarchs at Hebron, not to mention the Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem –”
I think you mean stolen Jewish historical sites.
| 21 November 2011, 5:19 pm |
Matt
You say of the Palestinian Authority that it was established:
“– to oversee and legitimise Israel’s occupation, many argue –”
That links to Jonathan Cook’s website, which seems presently to be down. However the article can be read here.
Jonathan Cook is a supporter of the antisemite campaigner, Gilad Atzmon, who is currently the subject of a campaign by Hope not Hate.
Look, I’m not sure what the purpose of this article is. Few people have any illusions at the incompetence and corruption of the Palestinian Authority. We confidently expect the PA to destroy as much architectural heritage as it can, particularly if it evidences Jewish life in the areas they control. So this isn’t a surprise.
But this is a basic problem with you, and your writing. Perhaps you think that, by being critical of the PA, you’re endearing yourself in some way to people who sympathy with Israelis, and establishing a reputation as a fair dealer.
If that’s what you’re hoping to do, then why reference a nut like Jonathan Cook at all? The only impression you create is that you’re the sort of person who reads people like Jonathan Cook, and that you have no idea of how toxic he is.
I’m not suggesting you amend this piece to that end. I just wonder whether you have any idea how hopeless you appear?
| 21 November 2011, 5:20 pm |
If you wanted a real eye-opener, the archeology museum in Damascus had lots of mosaics from pre-Islamic times against which you could compare Umayyad mosaics. Spread across time, they are however strikingly both the products of the clearly same schools of artisanship and artistry at work in the region.
| 21 November 2011, 5:21 pm |
Lynne T,
I was parodying the way Arabs often talk! Surely that’s obvious!
| 21 November 2011, 5:22 pm |
Well don’t parody an ethnic group. That is considered quite racist and improper.
| 21 November 2011, 5:27 pm |
Alan A,
I didn’t know Cook supports Atzmon. Yes, I sometimes read his stuff. I think he’s extreme, very extreme at times, though I’ve seen no evidence he’s an antisemite, at least not till you mentioned this.
It’s clear I wasnt necessarily endorsing this view, or I would have said ‘created to legitimise and oversee the occupation’. I do think it’s an arguable point, so I said ome argue it. Cook is very much the type who argues it. You’re working very hard to find something to be outraged about here.
| 21 November 2011, 5:28 pm |
I had thought Matt was parodying a certain sort of anti-zionist, but with no racial implications.
| 21 November 2011, 5:31 pm |
I just wonder why you’ve bothered with this piece. Why not run it on a website that focuses on Palestinian state building, instead?
If you think Cook is extreme, then why are you citing him at all? Isn’t this basically your problem. Your views are formed by reading all sorts of potty people with frothing attitudes, and then you read some Israeli liberals. You split the difference. As a result, your antennae and bearings are just a little bit messed up.
| 21 November 2011, 5:32 pm |
Thanks for the compliment, Matt; but I think I cannot of been making myself clear.
My comment that “Islamic puritan tendencies in the visual arts were always there, but became dominant later.” This is a clue to what I am driving at.
You correctly identify the culprit:
[The Tree of Life mosaic's] scandalous state (imagine leaving a Rembrandt out for a few hours in Trafalgar Square) is entirely the fault of the Palestinian Authority.
Correctomundo.
However, you implicate the cause for this dereliction in the rampant corruption of the PA:
[The PA has] become a global byword for corruption. In the fat years after Oslo, it allowed countless millions – donated by the international community to a half-refugee population – to be pocketed by shameless officials.
But that is only half the story.
The other half involves the connivance of persuasive, popularist religious bigots, who have mounted an equally shameless campaign of cultural illiteracy and vandalism wrapped up in the big black flag of Islamist intolerance and conservative literalist dogma. These people do not neglect the monuments of the past because they cannot profit from them: no, they vandalise the monuments of the past and seek their destruction as a matter of zealous religious principle. This principle being the antithesis of Umayyad appreciation and love of nature – the pervasive puritan iconoclasm that has dominated Islam ever since.
One hand shakes the other, as they say.
| 21 November 2011, 5:36 pm |
Although … it has become an interesting discussion on the aesthetic sentiments of the Umayyad caliphate so… uh…
| 21 November 2011, 5:36 pm |
Oh, sheesh, here we go again – yet another spittle-flecked, ignorant attack on Israel by the usual suspect.
| 21 November 2011, 5:40 pm |
From the post
“There’s no blaming the Zionists for this one.”
“There’s no blaming the Zionists for this one.”
Your just not being creative enough.
Stan
| 21 November 2011, 5:45 pm |
Hat Tip to Israelinurse
You’re going to love this…
UNESCO has made Syria a member of the committee on Human Rights.
| 21 November 2011, 5:49 pm |
‘I just wonder why you’ve bothered with this piece. Why not run it on a website that focuses on Palestinian state building, instead?’
Because these are my views and Harry’s Place was good enough to host them. You seem to be suggesting only writers who share your opinions, or the opinions normally posted around here, should be hosted by Harry’s Place. Which is odd, considering the Orwell quote at the top of this page. If you disagree with something in it, say so. But I want to engage with readers at HP precisely because we often have different views. I think that can make for fruitful discussion. I’m sorry you don’t like my writing, Alan A, but I don’t think this is an antisemitic screed. In fact I’m mystified you’re so angry about it.
| 21 November 2011, 5:53 pm |
Alan – I think Matt is wiling both to accept and engage with different points of view. I’m sure he would take on board any info about somone supporting Atzmon or whatever. My sense is that he didn’t just want to ‘preach to the converted’ at Lib Con, yet neither did he want to antagonise people here, gratuitously – just be contrarian.
| 21 November 2011, 5:54 pm |
Hi Matt,
I for one, appreciate the piece. I would encourage you to try to post it on “pro-Palestian” websites.
I for one, appreciate the piece. I would encourage you to try to post it on “pro-Palestian” websites.
Stan
| 21 November 2011, 5:55 pm |
Abu Faris, I could talk for hours on the subject of the Picatrix and al-Majriti.
| 21 November 2011, 5:56 pm |
Alan A,
‘If you think Cook is extreme, then why are you citing him at all?’
I find he often challenges my liberal, centre-left assumptions, and forces me to refine my views in contradistinction to his. Again, I think it’s bizarre that you seem to believe we should only read writers we agree with. I recently read George Bush’s presidential memoirs, and I loathe the man.
‘Isn’t this basically your problem. Your views are formed by reading all sorts of potty people with frothing attitudes, and then you read some Israeli liberals. You split the difference. As a result, your antennae and bearings are just a little bit messed up.’
What do you know about what I read? If you’d like to know, instead of making unsubstantiated guesses, there are two places where I’ve publicly posted about books I’ve read on this topic.
These are my top five Israel-Palestine books:http://themuddleeast.blogspot.com/2011/10/my-five-top-books-about-israel.html
And I mention some of my recent books here:http://themuddleeast.blogspot.com/2011/11/middle-east-writing-and-reading.html
| 21 November 2011, 5:57 pm |
I’ve seen the Umayyad mosque and wondered at those beautiful mosaics, which as Abu F says, represent natural forms. Shortly beforehand I’d been in the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul where the decoration is almost entirely abstract, and very gorgeous. Seeing representational art is quite a shock in an Islamic context.
The Umayyad mosque is one of the most beautiful buildings I’ve ever seen.
| 21 November 2011, 5:57 pm |
And it’s covered in shit.When I visited the site this summer, it had plainly been subject to years of disregard. The Global Heritage Fund has listed it as one of twelve historic treasures that, if we don’t act now, we’re in danger of losing forever. It’s precisely such emergencies that make UNESCO too important for US political subterfuge.
So, do we presume it ONLY became “covered in shit” as soon as the USA decided to defund UNESCO? Or, has it been like that for more than a few weeks while the USA WAS funding UNESCO.
Perhaps “covered in shit” is a euphimism for teh Palestinians concern about antiquities. They seem to have this nasty habit of destroying them, especially if it has anything to do with Jews.
What an asshole you are, Mattie, even when you are trying to prove you aren’t
Says Lynne T as a preview to what Alan A at 5:19 pm in many more words and so well argued.
I didn’t know Cook supports Atzmon. Yes, I sometimes read his stuff. I think he’s extreme, very extreme at times, though I’ve seen no evidence he’s an antisemite, at least not till you mentioned this.
Doh!!!!
Then you confirmed it. :)
| 21 November 2011, 6:02 pm |
Stan,
Thanks. I would gladly post it at a ‘pro-Palestinian’ site because it criticises the Palestinian leadership, and unlike Alan A, I think it’s important to challenge people’s assumptions (although I realise the PA isn’t exactly wildly popular with many pro-Palestinians).
| 21 November 2011, 6:04 pm |
No, Matt’s point is perfectly good. It brings my continuing dilemnmna into focus: should we be setting our own agenda for Palestinian development, which might make for stronger development but which they probably won’t listen to and which might anyway sound a bit “imperialist”: or whether we should be allowing them to set their own agenda, which in my case would mean switching off completely until the first scintilla of evidence emerges that any influential Palestinian has anything to say worth listening to. (If this were Twitter I’d finish with #pointlesstinians)
| 21 November 2011, 6:04 pm |
‘So, do we presume it ONLY became “covered in shit” as soon as the USA decided to defund UNESCO? Or, has it been like that for more than a few weeks while the USA WAS funding UNESCO.’
Um, no. UNESCO has had nothing to do with Hisham’s Palace so far. I explicitly blame the PA for the state of the mosaic, which by its appearance has clearly been neglected for years. I don’t think that’s a reasonable interpretation of what I was saying.
| 21 November 2011, 6:04 pm |
“Oh, sheesh, here we go again – yet another spittle-flecked, ignorant attack on Israel by the usual suspect.”
How is this piece an attack on Israel?
| 21 November 2011, 6:05 pm |
“Which is odd, considering the Orwell quote at the top of this page.”
That’s always been ironic, I think. Its a stupid quote. If you don’t want to hear a point of view then its not a loss to anybody’s liberty. Harry always hated Orwell (a stalinist thing).
| 21 November 2011, 6:05 pm |
Because these are my views and Harry’s Place was good enough to host them.
HP is good enough to sometimes host threads from people who’s opinions they generally don’t go overboard on but who are given the opportunity to explain themselves. Sometimes in a right of reply.
You seem to be suggesting only writers who share your opinions, or the opinions normally posted around here, should be hosted by Harry’s Place.
Absolutely NOT! How dull it would make HP to only have people that posters generally agree with. Matt, as far as I am concerned you are welcome to post at HP as often as you like because you are such great entertainment and fun. Its great to see a liberal with little grasp of Israel/Palestinian politics flounder so badly. Its hoped you will take your new learnings back to the nest and help some fellow travellers.
| 21 November 2011, 6:07 pm |
Matt
I think that the criticism you want to make of the Palestinian leadership needs to be hand-in-hand with a criticism of the Islamists who make up a sizable and de facto component of that leadership.
The making of an ideological breach with Islamism and an alliance with progressive strands within Zionism is of the essence of progressive and liberal struggle in the modernArab world, imho.
| 21 November 2011, 6:12 pm |
And so to labour the analogy: the issues surrounding the neglect of the mosaic (both the corrupt practices of guardians and the wishes of the religious nutters to extirpate “non-Islamic” artifacts) mirror the issues surrounding the Palestinian leadership – corruption *and* Islamism.
| 21 November 2011, 6:19 pm |
‘Look, I’m not sure what the purpose of this article is.’
The main point is to argue that UNEScO should do something about a valuable cultural relic that’s in danger of being lost.
‘But this is a basic problem with you, and your writing. Perhaps you think that, by being critical of the PA, you’re endearing yourself in some way to people who sympathy with Israelis, and establishing a reputation as a fair dealer.’
So when you disagree with me, I’m a borderline racist anti-Israeli zealot. And when you agree, I’m cynically trying to curry your favour. Look at it from my point of view: can you see why I feel I can’t win here?
Actually, I have no real intention to ‘endear’ myself to anyone; no matter how stupid and ill-informed you think I am, I’m afraid I actually believe everything I say. There’s no contradiction between having some strong criticisms of Israel and thinking the PA is incompetent – in fact many people think just that.
Far from expecting to endear myself to you, I actually mentioned to the site editor when I submitted this piece that I’d be interested to see how one or two people here manage to read what’s basically a piece about architecture as violent call to destroy Israel. I have a slightly inevitable sense that I’ll never be able to convince some people here I’m reasonable, sincere and principled. I guess I just know I’m not an anti-semite or a hater of Israel, and as long as all my Jewish and Israeli friends agree with me, I’m not too worried what some guy on the internet thinks of me.
However, I’m a little disappointed in you, Alan A, because you genuinely seem intelligent. So, no, I don’t particularly like to endear myself to you; but I do wish you would credit me with sincerity and reasonableness, even if you strongly disagree with me.
| 21 November 2011, 6:20 pm |
So, do we presume it ONLY became “covered in shit” as soon as the USA decided to defund UNESCO? Or, has it been like that for more than a few weeks while the USA WAS funding UNESCO.’
Um, no. UNESCO has had nothing to do with Hisham’s Palace so far. I explicitly blame the PA for the state of the mosaic, which by its appearance has clearly been neglected for years. I don’t think that’s a reasonable interpretation of what I was saying.
Oh dear!
My point was TOO subtle for you. What the F… has USA decision to defund UNESCO got to do with the PA neglecting antiquities? I ask because you inserted this apparent irrelevance into your article. What relevance does USA defunding have to your point?
| 21 November 2011, 6:25 pm |
‘Oh, sheesh, here we go again – yet another spittle-flecked, ignorant attack on Israel by the usual suspect.’
I confess, I somewhat despair. This is an attack on the Palestinian Authority, if anything. There is nothing here that attacks Israel. I have many views that are critical of Israel, just as I’m often critical of the PA – I think it would be weird to find a government out there that doesn’t make big mistakes – but it just so happens there’s no attack on Israel in this piece.
At least Alan A evidently read the piece before contriving to find vile, nasty anti-Israeli opinions in there. Did you actually read it?
| 21 November 2011, 6:29 pm |
“If you think Cook is extreme, then why are you citing him at all?”
I was reading a fascinating book by that Austrian chappy last week. He was a bit harsh on the Jews for my taste but what he had to say about rail infrastructure was quite thought-provoking…
| 21 November 2011, 6:32 pm |
‘Oh dear!
My point was TOO subtle for you. What the F… has USA decision to defund UNESCO got to do with the PA neglecting antiquities? I ask because you inserted this apparent irrelevance into your article. What relevance does USA defunding have to your point?’
My point was TOO subtle for you. What the F… has USA decision to defund UNESCO got to do with the PA neglecting antiquities? I ask because you inserted this apparent irrelevance into your article. What relevance does USA defunding have to your point?’
I don’t think you’ll often be accused of an excess of subtlety, Dcook.
My point is UNESCO is important because there are governments who can’t or won’t take care of cultural treasures. Obviously it would be nice if all governments took total responsibility for such relics, making UNESCO redundant. But that’s not the case.
| 21 November 2011, 6:35 pm |
Barad,
I don’t think Jonathan cook is in any way comparable to Hitler, and I think it’s shameful of you to resort to such analogies so easily. I do not believe Jonathan cook has killed six million Jews, though as always I am ready to change my view if you can provide evidence to the contrary.
| 21 November 2011, 6:42 pm |
Alan A,
‘Well don’t parody an ethnic group. That is considered quite racist and improper.’
Aren’t you ashamed of yourself, Alan A? You know full well what I was doing in that sentence; you don’t believe it was racist at all. It was a sarcastic reference to the way certain Arabs or anti-Israelis like to talk. I dare say it’s the kind of thing you’d say. So why do you just blithely accuse me of racism? I understand you don’t like me, and I’m sorry about that, but you clearly have little to say about the matter at hand – unlike, for instance, Abu Faris – so you’re just trying to ruin the discussion by making totally insincere and slanderous implications. You should take that back, or clarify you don’t think I’ve said anything racist here. It’s a heavy charge to make against someone and throwing the accusation around trivially just trivialises the important fact that real racism exists and needs to be combatted.
| 21 November 2011, 6:44 pm |
You should take that back
or I’ll complain to mummy.
| 21 November 2011, 6:47 pm |
I confess, I somewhat despair
Awe, diddums.
There is nothing here that attacks Israel.
… There’s no blaming the Zionists for this one.
… There’s no blaming the Zionists for this one.
You don’t even know any more when you use nasty, swivel-eyed phrases, is that it?
| 21 November 2011, 6:47 pm |
However, I’m a little disappointed in you, Alan A, because you genuinely seem intelligent
Let’s all do a high fives with Alan A for seeming to be intelligent as far as Matt is concerned. :) You’ve got my palms Alan!
I have a slightly inevitable sense that I’ll never be able to convince some people here I’m reasonable, sincere and principled.
Ah, “Liberty is theight to……..”
You know the rest. :)
| 21 November 2011, 6:50 pm |
Sarah,
I think Matt is wiling both to accept and engage with different points of view
This is off the wall even for you. Hill managed to evade and avoid the point about Res. 242 for something like 50 posts (the ones he wrote, I mean) a few days ago.
| 21 November 2011, 6:52 pm |
However, I’m a little disappointed in you, Alan A, because you genuinely seem intelligent
I don’t think you even realise how embarassingly pompous, condescending and self-important you are.
| 21 November 2011, 6:52 pm |
Abu faris,
‘you implicate the cause for this dereliction in the rampant corruption of the PA:
But that is only half the story.
The other half involves the connivance of persuasive, popularist religious bigots, who have mounted an equally shameless campaign of cultural illiteracy and vandalism wrapped up in the big black flag of Islamist intolerance and conservative literalist dogma. These people do not neglect the monuments of the past because they cannot profit from them: no, they vandalise the monuments of the past and seek their destruction as a matter of zealous religious principle. This principle being the antithesis of Umayyad appreciation and love of nature – the pervasive puritan iconoclasm that has dominated Islam ever since.
One hand shakes the other, as they say.’
But that is only half the story.
The other half involves the connivance of persuasive, popularist religious bigots, who have mounted an equally shameless campaign of cultural illiteracy and vandalism wrapped up in the big black flag of Islamist intolerance and conservative literalist dogma. These people do not neglect the monuments of the past because they cannot profit from them: no, they vandalise the monuments of the past and seek their destruction as a matter of zealous religious principle. This principle being the antithesis of Umayyad appreciation and love of nature – the pervasive puritan iconoclasm that has dominated Islam ever since.
One hand shakes the other, as they say.’
That’s an interesting point, just like all your posts in this thread. I’m sorry I haven’t been able to give your points the attention they deserve, but I’ve been trying to refute various posters who seem to have mistaken this piece for a call to destroy Israel. It’s disappointing, because views like yours – informed, well-argued – should be given the space and consideration they deserve.
So you think the poor state of Hisham’s Palace is, in large part, deliberate, because the PA is influenced by fundamentalist Islamicists who despise art and beauty and care little for the upkeep of such ancient treasures?
That’s an interesting view. As you may know, many Muslims believe Hisham’s Palace was the site of depraved, scandalous doings – in fact I’ve heard Jericho locals refer to it as the ‘house of sin’ and explain that it was used as a whorehouse.
When I looked into this claim it seems that the only basis for it is that the representation-focussed art and the design of the palace is considered decadent by Islamic standards, leading some to believe its owner was decadent, sinful, and so on.
But would the PA deliberately sabotage a potentially lucrative source of tourist income?
| 21 November 2011, 6:54 pm |
Obviously it would be nice if all governments took total responsibility for such relics, making UNESCO redundant
I’ve had an idea. Correct me if this seems a bit off-the-wall but aren’t there loads of Arab countries, Turkey and Greece (no scrub Greece!) who have a bit of dosh and a great love of wishing to preserve antiquities? Wouldn’t it be nice if they took care of it?
Or, call in the Taliban. They’ll have it raised to the ground quicker than you can say “ancient religious statues”.
| 21 November 2011, 6:55 pm |
‘Let’s all do a high fives with Alan A for seeming to be intelligent as far as Matt is concerned. :) You’ve got my palms Alan!
I have a slightly inevitable sense that I’ll never be able to convince some people here I’m reasonable, sincere and principled.
Ah, “Liberty is theight to……..”
You know the rest. :)’
I have a slightly inevitable sense that I’ll never be able to convince some people here I’m reasonable, sincere and principled.
Ah, “Liberty is theight to……..”
You know the rest. :)’
Thanks for that contribution, Dcook. Do you mind if I borrow your expertise by quoting you next time I’m talking about Islamic art?
| 21 November 2011, 6:58 pm |
Abu Faris
It’s a good point that PA hasn’t been neglecting such sites out of corruption, but just because they are not a priority with anyone there. Despite the glories of Islamic heritage, the present mood of revivalist Islam is almost as hostile to such stuff as it is to non-Islamic heritage.
It’s a good point that PA hasn’t been neglecting such sites out of corruption, but just because they are not a priority with anyone there. Despite the glories of Islamic heritage, the present mood of revivalist Islam is almost as hostile to such stuff as it is to non-Islamic heritage.
I do like the Tree of Life though – is it true that this is the only original exemplar of the particular Tree with lion jumping on gazelle?
I have a personal interest – because I have it on my kitchen wall along with other tile mosaics recently purchased from the Armenian Pottery in Jerusalem – and pleasingly the subject of huge admiration from all my friends…
These Armenian chaps, Christian Israelis – who were really nice and helpful and not even expensive – are descendants of a family imported a century ago to work on mosques.
| 21 November 2011, 7:02 pm |
‘I’ve had an idea. Correct me if this seems a bit off-the-wall but aren’t there loads of Arab countries, Turkey and Greece (no scrub Greece!) who have a bit of dosh and a great love of wishing to preserve antiquities? Wouldn’t it be nice if they took care of it?’
Turkey and Greece are not, I believe, Arab countries. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Are you saying that Arabs (plus Turkey and Greece, for some reason) should look after Arab cultural relics; that Jews should look after Jewish cultural relics; that blacks should look after their own cultural relics; and so on? That seem to be the implication – that each ethnic group has a duty and interest in looking after its own culture, to the exclusion of the rest of us. Though I admit I’m throw by this Turkey and Greece business. I suppose it’s possible you’re being too subtle for me, but you seem to be implying that there’s no such thing as cultural relics that people, in general, might have good reasons to preserve.
Don’t you think it would be sad if a beautiful piece of Umayyad art was destroyed forever? Or do you think only Arabs would have any business being bothered?
I think you must definitely be too subtle for me.
| 21 November 2011, 7:09 pm |
Peter,
I think I make a lot of effort to engage with posters below the line. But you may have noticed my pieces attract a lot of adverse comment, so I can’t always reply to every one. Sometimes I might ignore a post by accident. Other times it’s because I think the post is not worth replying to, because in my view it’s a worthless point. Sometimes I don’t want to be rude, so I ignore a post that’s not worth replying to, and then, if the author protests, I pretend I just hadn’t seen it.
Anyway, I’m sorry, I guess I didn’t see your post.
| 21 November 2011, 7:11 pm |
“But would the PA deliberately sabotage a potentially lucrative source of tourist income?”
It appears to be quite good at sabotaging its own statehood. So I’d guess: yes.
| 21 November 2011, 7:12 pm |
Matt,
I have a hard time understanding why you are still allowed to write here. My feeling is that HP is trying to raise advertising money because through how many page clicks your articles get as people are outraged by your naive stances. I’ll ignore for a moment that you’ve decided that the Temple Mount and the Cave of the Patriarchs are Palestinian sites, rather than Jewish sites – a description that betrays much about your views. Are you seriously implying though, that Palestinians despair over this disrepair? Because the Palestinians are actively involved in the destruction of archeological treasures, much more actively than the neglect of which you speak. How about the way they treat Joseph’s Tomb by burning it and spraypainting it, while pretending that it is just as important to them as it is to the Jews? Or how the Waqf digs up the Temple Mount with heavy machinery to destroy Jewish traces (which have later been found in the landfills) without either UNESCO or Palestinians, or people like you saying a word? Or how they have adopted Rachel’s Tomb and other Jewish sites as “mosques” with full UNESCO backing? UNESCO, through action and ommission, has been complicit in the Palestinian rewriting of history and destroying of Jewish heritage, and yet you point to how important UNESCO is in preserving a site that they clearly haven’t shown interest in before and that is entirely the responsibility of the Palestinians. How is this post relevant to anything? Literally. Anything? And how would it symbolize “a world uniting to help a nation rise up out of its ruins?” when that nation has shown no interest in this act, or in rising up, and when the leadership of this nation (which often would be presumed to represent that nation) is the party guilty of negligence? And how has this nation ever been “ruined”? And how would engaging in a project that no one in the region seems to care about, somehow prove that the UNESCO moves was more than a stunt? And why are you so desperate to give that stunt cover? I can’t even begin to wrap my head around these ramblings.
I have a hard time understanding why you are still allowed to write here. My feeling is that HP is trying to raise advertising money because through how many page clicks your articles get as people are outraged by your naive stances. I’ll ignore for a moment that you’ve decided that the Temple Mount and the Cave of the Patriarchs are Palestinian sites, rather than Jewish sites – a description that betrays much about your views. Are you seriously implying though, that Palestinians despair over this disrepair? Because the Palestinians are actively involved in the destruction of archeological treasures, much more actively than the neglect of which you speak. How about the way they treat Joseph’s Tomb by burning it and spraypainting it, while pretending that it is just as important to them as it is to the Jews? Or how the Waqf digs up the Temple Mount with heavy machinery to destroy Jewish traces (which have later been found in the landfills) without either UNESCO or Palestinians, or people like you saying a word? Or how they have adopted Rachel’s Tomb and other Jewish sites as “mosques” with full UNESCO backing? UNESCO, through action and ommission, has been complicit in the Palestinian rewriting of history and destroying of Jewish heritage, and yet you point to how important UNESCO is in preserving a site that they clearly haven’t shown interest in before and that is entirely the responsibility of the Palestinians. How is this post relevant to anything? Literally. Anything? And how would it symbolize “a world uniting to help a nation rise up out of its ruins?” when that nation has shown no interest in this act, or in rising up, and when the leadership of this nation (which often would be presumed to represent that nation) is the party guilty of negligence? And how has this nation ever been “ruined”? And how would engaging in a project that no one in the region seems to care about, somehow prove that the UNESCO moves was more than a stunt? And why are you so desperate to give that stunt cover? I can’t even begin to wrap my head around these ramblings.
| 21 November 2011, 7:13 pm |
Matt Hill
21 November 2011, 5:21 pm
21 November 2011, 5:21 pm
Obviously, your attempt at paroday wasn’t obvious.
| 21 November 2011, 7:13 pm |
As you may know, many Muslims believe Hisham’s Palace was the site of depraved, scandalous doings – in fact I’ve heard Jericho locals refer to it as the ‘house of sin’ and explain that it was used as a whorehouse.
When I looked into this claim it seems that the only basis for it is that the representation-focussed art and the design of the palace is considered decadent by Islamic standards, leading some to believe its owner was decadent, sinful, and so on.
But would the PA deliberately sabotage a potentially lucrative source of tourist income?
I think there is an element of the anti-decadent movement of Islamism in all this – however, I think the tragedy that you describe unfolding at that incredibly important archaeological site is more the *consequence* of the exigent collision of blind greed *and* Islamist fervour – they both have a vested interest in doing nothing to preserve this site. The local bureaucrats out of interest for their pockets, the Islamists for their own religious-political ends. Further, one seems to support the other by default – the Islamists can rely on the local curators to let the hated thing slip into decay because of the latters’ greed; the local curators can use Islamist language to excuse their thieving ways with the funds needed for preservation. Everyone’s happy.
Incidentally, the alleged venality and sensualism of the Umayyad form part of the negative propaganda that issued from both eventual successors of that dynasty of Caliphs, the Abbasid Caliphate and from Shi’a opponents of the Umayyad. It continues to this day.
| 21 November 2011, 7:26 pm |
RE: AngryPeter: ‘Oh, sheesh, here we go again – yet another spittle-flecked, ignorant attack on Israel by the usual suspect.’
Matt: I confess, I somewhat despair. This is an attack on the Palestinian Authority, if anything.
I agree with Matt. AngryPeter is the kind of fellow that Woody Allen described in Annie Hall. If he hears someone says “did you” quickly, he hears Didjew, and cries antisemitism.
As for “I don’t think you even realise how embarassingly pompous, condescending and self-important you are,” it’s today’s winner of the POT.KETTLE.BLACK award, though this, aimed at Sarah by the same Angry Peter, comes a close second: “This is off the wall even for you.”
And oh yeah, I know, I’m obtuse.
| 21 November 2011, 7:28 pm |
I’ve had an idea. Correct me if this seems a bit off-the-wall but aren’t there loads of Arab countries, Turkey and Greece (no scrub Greece!) who have a bit of dosh and a great love of wishing to preserve antiquities? Wouldn’t it be nice if they took care of it?’
Turkey and Greece are not, I believe, Arab countries.
The clue to understanding that sentence is to respect the comma!!!
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Are you saying that Arabs (plus Turkey and Greece, for some reason) should look after Arab cultural relics;
Turkey, or Ottoman Empire as it was once known ………………….
Tiresome!
| 21 November 2011, 7:32 pm |
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE
Entire civilian cabinet of interim government in Egypt resigns in protest against military crackdown on demonstrators.
| 21 November 2011, 7:35 pm |
Other times it’s because I think the post is not worth replying to, because in my view it’s a worthless point
But some of us have more patience than you and so YOUR posts ARE getting replies, despite the worthlessness of many of your points.
| 21 November 2011, 7:36 pm |
‘I’ll ignore for a moment that you’ve decided that the Temple Mount and the Cave of the Patriarchs are Palestinian sites, rather than Jewish sites – a description that betrays much about your views.’
Well that could be taken as a rather innocuous description, since these sites came about when the land was known by many as Palestine.
But if you want to read it as a political claim – yes, I don’t mind saying that both these sites are on land Israel occupied in 1967, so I consider them part of occupied Palestine. I realise not everyone will agree, but it’s a reasonable enough view. Or do you think all 15 of the judges on the International court of Justice were somehow rabid anti-semites when they unanimously declared that this was illegally occupied land? Including all three Jewish ones?
Look, you don’t have to agree with me, but it’s a reasonable enough opinion to hold. Refute it if you like, but don’t say it shouldn’t be ‘allowed’.
Once again it seems everyone’s prepared to listen to opinions they don’t want to hear, as per Orwell, except when they don’t want to hear them.
And I’m pretty sure I’m not being hosted to raise advertising money.
‘Are you seriously implying though, that Palestinians despair over this disrepair?’
No, I quite explicitly said it was their leaders’ fault, didn’t I? I don’t think I ever implied that.
‘Because the Palestinians are actively involved in the destruction of archeological treasures, much more actively than the neglect of which you speak. How about the way they treat Joseph’s Tomb by burning it and spraypainting it, while pretending that it is just as important to them as it is to the Jews? Or how the Waqf digs up the Temple Mount with heavy machinery to destroy Jewish traces (which have later been found in the landfills) without either UNESCO or Palestinians, or people like you saying a word?’
People like me? When have you ever written an article complaining about the PA’s neglect of cultural relics? It seems that it’s precisely ‘people like me’ – whatever that means – who are doing so! I think you’re getting me confused with an uncritical pro-Palestinian.
I’m sorry, I couldn’t think of anything to say to the rest of your post. I think you are trying to argue with someone else.
| 21 November 2011, 7:53 pm |
‘I’ll ignore for a moment that you’ve decided that the Temple Mount and the Cave of the Patriarchs are Palestinian sites, rather than Jewish sites – a description that betrays much about your views.’
Well that could be taken as a rather innocuous description, since these sites came about when the land was known by many as Palestine.
In 1922 when Palestine was designated The Jewish National Home.
| 21 November 2011, 7:53 pm |
RE: I think you are trying to argue with someone else.
I think you’re right, Matt. It does appear they haven’t actually read your words in this article, but are arguing with a phantom pro-Palestinian whom they identify with you because of previous things you’ve written (much of which I also disagree with, as it happens). Which doesn’t give anyone the right to impute views to you that you don’t hold.
| 21 November 2011, 7:55 pm |
RE: In 1922 when Palestine was designated The Jewish National Home.
Yes, but it was still called Palestine in 1922, and it still supports Matt’s view that given that, it was innocuous to call them “Palestinian sites.” Of course, any reasonable person should concede that the Temple Mount and the Tomb of the Patriarchs are Jewish historical sites, as is Rachel’s Tomb and all the rest.
| 21 November 2011, 7:57 pm |
Abu
I like your lion and gazelle, but there is conspicuous absence of tree. My Armenian/Jerusalem walltile features tree with a coupla gazelles on one side looking placid happy and on the other a lion jumping on a less fortunate gazelle.
I like your lion and gazelle, but there is conspicuous absence of tree. My Armenian/Jerusalem walltile features tree with a coupla gazelles on one side looking placid happy and on the other a lion jumping on a less fortunate gazelle.
Matt- sorry to divert you from big political issues for a mo, but I can’t get an image from your link (I get someone offering me an email account). Maybe I shall get intrigued enough to write to the Jerusalem potters and ask them where the original idea for the design came from – this being the simplest 22-dollar version
| 21 November 2011, 8:03 pm |
I say people like you because you choose the most innocuous topics rather than acknowledge the more relevant matters when such matters would potentially vilify Palestinian society, and you then absolve the Palestinians as a whole by referring merely to their leadership. People like you who complain about the neglect of cultural relics that Palestinians don’t seem too concerned with, but show no concern for Jewish relics, that are intentionally destroyed for political purposes and that are desecrated by Palestinian civilians. It’s this selectivity with which I identify “people like you”.
As for being “allowed”to post, it’s not simply because I believe you are wrong. That’s perfectly fine, and anyone has a right to post an opposing view. My gripe is that your posts are useless, naive and add absolutely nothing of substance to the dialogue, and therefore represent a lower lever of quality than I am used to at this site.
As for the Temple Mount, no peace proposal has ever called for Jews to cede that land (maybe to internationalize it, but certainly not to make it Palestinian, as it never has been “Palestinian”), so your decision to call Judaism’s most holy site “Palestinian” is not a reasonable enough view. Since UNSC 242 and all potential outcomes allow for Israel to keep some of the land from 1967, you are clearly thinking outside of what’s considered the practical resolution to the conflict.
And if you agree that Palestinians don’t seem to care too much about this matter, how would this act of symbolism accomplish anything? What is your point, Matt? You say it’s not about American defunding, then why even mention that? You admit that it doesn’t matter to Palestinians, then why would it help them rise up? And UNESCO is clearly just as political and anti-Israel a group as the rest of the UN, so why insist on showing its worth by giving cover to a political ploy? UNESCO could play a part in resolving the conflict, by calling for compromise and admitting the heritage claims of both nations on that land, but it has played a very poisonous and politicized role that fixing up a mosaic wouldn’t undo. So… what is your point Matt?
As for being “allowed”to post, it’s not simply because I believe you are wrong. That’s perfectly fine, and anyone has a right to post an opposing view. My gripe is that your posts are useless, naive and add absolutely nothing of substance to the dialogue, and therefore represent a lower lever of quality than I am used to at this site.
As for the Temple Mount, no peace proposal has ever called for Jews to cede that land (maybe to internationalize it, but certainly not to make it Palestinian, as it never has been “Palestinian”), so your decision to call Judaism’s most holy site “Palestinian” is not a reasonable enough view. Since UNSC 242 and all potential outcomes allow for Israel to keep some of the land from 1967, you are clearly thinking outside of what’s considered the practical resolution to the conflict.
And if you agree that Palestinians don’t seem to care too much about this matter, how would this act of symbolism accomplish anything? What is your point, Matt? You say it’s not about American defunding, then why even mention that? You admit that it doesn’t matter to Palestinians, then why would it help them rise up? And UNESCO is clearly just as political and anti-Israel a group as the rest of the UN, so why insist on showing its worth by giving cover to a political ploy? UNESCO could play a part in resolving the conflict, by calling for compromise and admitting the heritage claims of both nations on that land, but it has played a very poisonous and politicized role that fixing up a mosaic wouldn’t undo. So… what is your point Matt?
| 21 November 2011, 8:07 pm |
I don’t think the PA has any intention of using its membership of UNESCO in order to preserve the Hisham Palace. You know perfectly well that their bid for membership was a political move aimed at undermining Israel’s legal position regarding the antiquities in its care. To quote Hatem Abdel Qader, former PA Jerusalem affairs minister, “We will take Israel to court for systematically destroying and forging Arab and Islamic culture in Jerusalem” The sheer brass-neck of that statement beggars belief when one considers how the Palestinians have desecrated Jewish synagogues and holy sites in Jericho, Nablus and Gush Katif, to name only a few from a long list. The whole bid for UNESCO membership stinks of political cynicism. The US was absolutely right in withdrawing funds from a manoeuvre who’s only result would to corrupt the very articles UNESCO is founded on.
| 21 November 2011, 8:07 pm |
Dcook,
That’s interesting. So you think Turkey is responsible for Palestine’s cultural relics because Palestine once belonged to Turkey’s empire?
But Palestine belonged to Britain more recently, so by your logic shouldn’t we be picking up the tab?
In some ways, people like you impress me. I keep making you look stupid, and you keep coming back for more, and you even suggest it’s tiresome having to explain yourself to someone of my low intelligence. I admire your chutzpah, I really do.
Sorry if this sounds arrogant – I actually don’t see it as such, because your point is so absurd that it takes very little acumen to make you look stupid. I just told my girlfriend about your fascinating Ottoman Empire point, and she’s still laughing. This one’s from her: so next time there’s an Australian cultural relic that needs saving, India should step in as a former member of the British empire?
| 21 November 2011, 8:09 pm |
“Yes, but it was still called Palestine in 1922, and it still supports Matt’s view that given that, it was innocuous to call them “Palestinian sites.” Of course, any reasonable person should concede that the Temple Mount and the Tomb of the Patriarchs are Jewish historical sites, as is Rachel’s Tomb and all the rest.”
Is Matt included in this description of “any reasonable person” because he did not claim to be? And UNESCO certainly doesn’t act in keeping with this “reasonable” idea, nor do any Arabs who I have seen or read in opining on this matter.
| 21 November 2011, 8:11 pm |
‘I think you’re right, Matt. It does appear they haven’t actually read your words in this article, but are arguing with a phantom pro-Palestinian whom they identify with you because of previous things you’ve written (much of which I also disagree with, as it happens). Which doesn’t give anyone the right to impute views to you that you don’t hold.’
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, even passionately. But I think we should be able to disagree with each other civilly. And this thread is just amusing – the way in which my words are being twisted seems like some unimaginative Palestine Solidarity campaign member’s parody of inflexible, paranoid pro-Israel rhetoric.
| 21 November 2011, 8:14 pm |
Nate,
‘So… what is your point Matt?’
That Israel should be destroyed, Nate, and all the Jews pushed into the sea. I decided to cunningly disguise my evil views with a call for a cultural agency to do something about the neglect of a historic relic. You found me out, though. What can I say?
| 21 November 2011, 8:19 pm |
Sorry all, have to go. I can only apologise for the vile, anti-Israeli sentiments in this article, which so many of you have perceptively decoded.
As always, I’ll check back later and reply to all reasonable comments. And when I’ve replied to both of those, I might even reply to some unreasonable ones, too.
I look forward to finding out the new, ingenious ways in which my words can be twisted into hateful racist rants.
By the way, if anyone has anything to say about UNEScO, Hisham’s Palace, PA corruption, etc, don’t be afraid to go off topic.
| 21 November 2011, 8:25 pm |
‘Of course, any reasonable person should concede that the Temple Mount and the Tomb of the Patriarchs are Jewish historical sites, as is Rachel’s Tomb and all the rest.’
Yes – but the Temple Mount isn’t an exclusively Jewish historical site, is it? That’s the whole problem. Rachel’s Tomb, though, really ought to be recognised as a Jewish site primarily (I would say exclusively but I can’t help it if some Muslims have the idea it’s holy to them – I don’t think anything’s holy, so to me both religious Jews and religious Muslims are fundamentally as mistaken as each other, if you see what I mean…).
| 21 November 2011, 8:36 pm |
RE: your posts … represent a lower lever of quality than I am used to at this site.
Ridiculous.
| 21 November 2011, 8:40 pm |
Matt: I wasn’t talking about “holy,” I was talking about historical. Now, Rachel was a Jewish matriarch, ergo, her tomb is a Jewish historical site. That Muslims (and Christians?) attach themselves to Jewish historical sites is certainly a fact, but it doesn’t detract from the original Jewish historicity of the site in question. And the same, I might add, applies to the temple mount. Or did you think Muhammed’s ascent to heaven (such as it was), and the subsequent building of Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock on that site, were coincidences? In short, if Jewish history hadn’t created these sites, neither Muslims nor Christians would give a damn about them.
| 21 November 2011, 8:41 pm |
Abu Faris
21 November 2011, 7:13 pm
21 November 2011, 7:13 pm
First and foremost, I hope you, your family and your neighbours are and will remain safe from harm.
As re: the PA being remiss in promoting tourism vis a vis an antiquity relating to the rule of a particular Caliphate, well, since when has the PA, Salam Fayyed excepted, been terribly astute at taking care of business? And no doubt, until Abbas threw him under the bus the other day, Fayyed was more engaged in staunching corruption and policing the “militants” than he was at worrying over whether full tourism value was being appreciated at some particular site.
| 21 November 2011, 8:43 pm |
Well I agree with that, vildechaye. But if it’s taken to mean that the Jews have more of a ‘right’ to the Temple Mount than the Muslims, I can’t agree. I think they should find some way to stop squabbling and share it.
| 21 November 2011, 8:52 pm |
RE: In 1922 when Palestine was designated The Jewish National Home.
Yes, but it was still called Palestine in 1922,
So you violently agree with me. Even by 1947 the Jews of Palestine were called “Palestinians”.
| 21 November 2011, 8:54 pm |
Matt
Still no link to image (sigh – are you really as interested in it as all that?).
On a general peaceable note, can I remark that UNESCO is not known for being terrible pro-active as far as historical sites are concerned. Basically the nations sit around in UNESCO and compete for status and funds for their fave sites – and this means that in the reasonably democratic nations stuff depends on local organisations including NGOs etc making a big big fuss to national governments about how they want UNESCO status and then getting requests/applications put forward to UNESCO.
UNESCO’s leverage on people abusing or neglecting heritage sites depends almost entirely on their already having been put e.g. on their magic list…and UNESCO then making stern remarks about how they will be taken off the magic list unless they MEND THEIR WAYS. This has happened, for example, in recent years with threats over loss of status to the biggest UNESCO cultural heritage site in the world, viz…much of central Prague.
Still no link to image (sigh – are you really as interested in it as all that?).
On a general peaceable note, can I remark that UNESCO is not known for being terrible pro-active as far as historical sites are concerned. Basically the nations sit around in UNESCO and compete for status and funds for their fave sites – and this means that in the reasonably democratic nations stuff depends on local organisations including NGOs etc making a big big fuss to national governments about how they want UNESCO status and then getting requests/applications put forward to UNESCO.
UNESCO’s leverage on people abusing or neglecting heritage sites depends almost entirely on their already having been put e.g. on their magic list…and UNESCO then making stern remarks about how they will be taken off the magic list unless they MEND THEIR WAYS. This has happened, for example, in recent years with threats over loss of status to the biggest UNESCO cultural heritage site in the world, viz…much of central Prague.
They don’t utter more than whimpers or nothing if there is neglect or threats to sites that were never on the magic list. So basically if the PA won’t bother, it wouldn’t be normal procedure for UNESCO to bother…
| 21 November 2011, 9:10 pm |
Sarka,
Sorry, what are you looking for? I’m a bit busy now but I’ll find the image you want if I can.
| 21 November 2011, 9:28 pm |
just told my girlfriend about your fascinating Ottoman Empire point, and she’s still laughing.
Makes a change she’s laughing with you rather than at you.
| 21 November 2011, 9:30 pm |
I don’t mind saying that both these sites are on land Israel occupied in 1967, so I consider them part of occupied Palestine.
You did fail Logic 101, didn’t you? Being ‘occupied’ (even if we accept that it is, which I don’t) doesn’t make it ‘Palestine’, much less ‘Palestinian’.
Or do you think all 15 of the judges on the International court of Justice were somehow rabid anti-semites when they unanimously declared that this was illegally occupied land?
No, just thick and ignorant, e.g. of the legal history since the LoN mandate. For crying out loud, they didn’t even understand the simple legal concept that the Green Line was never a de jure international border.
| 21 November 2011, 9:44 pm |
Vildechaye:
You are too subtle here for most readers, not just Matt Hill.
I expect your intention was to point out that the caliphate responsible for the erection of the Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock built proximate to what was left of Solomon’s temples — on the rather flimsy context cooked up a few centuries after the fact that Mohammed travelled to “the far mosque” in order to ascend to the heavens on horseback — was nothing more than a political act to establish dominance both locally and in the greater context, as Islam’s true centre is in Saudi Arabia with signifcant sites in Iraq and Iran.
And to further reinforce the politics behind the locations of Aqsa and the Dome on Temple Mount, I recall a lecture given by historian Bernard Lewis gave a number of years ago that was broadcast on the CBC, in which he pointed out that either the Aqsa Mosque or the Dome of the Rock was built squarely upon the site of a Byzantine church, and on the walls of the mosque/dome, there is an inscription that directly disses Christian theology.
| 21 November 2011, 10:00 pm |
To be honest, if the Palestinians aren’t bothered about their historical sites, for whatever reason, no-one is going to make them do anything. This is a rather naive article. The only reason I can see that it was written was to obliquely plead that the Americans don’t pull the plug on UNESCO funding. At the end of the day, it’s down to the inhabitants of a country to take care of it, and obviously some inhabitants and some countries are better at that than others. Sarcasm never works on the internet, it relies on knowing a person really well, inflexions of voice and facial grimaces, none of which are available in the medium of type. Every thing written on the web is taken literally, especially when it is a touchy subject. So your wisecracks about ‘Zionists’ come over as literal.
| 21 November 2011, 10:06 pm |
Sue R,
That’s right, it’s impossible to convey sarcasm using just text, isn’t it?
| 21 November 2011, 10:28 pm |
Are you being sarcastic?
| 21 November 2011, 10:57 pm |
Matt
I just wanted an image of your Tree of Life. Maybe Sarah can fix the problem….
I just wanted an image of your Tree of Life. Maybe Sarah can fix the problem….
| 22 November 2011, 12:01 am |
Matt Hill
Civility is nice though it not a synonym for reasonable, in orientation or argument.
Frankly I believe that your intentions are decent (though ‘the road to hell’ and all that) though this has little bearing on what I think of the strength or even reasonableness of your arguments.
In fact I give you the benefit of the doubt on your actual desire for ‘impartiality’ because of your position on the ‘right of return for Palestinian refugees’ as this issue alone is enough to exclude you from being considered pro-Palestinian among Palestinians, though of course not among liberal Israeli’s. I do wonder however wether you are grounded enough in the millieu of Palestinian/Arab opinion to realise how non-negotiable this issue really is above all reason but that is another issue.
I do not find your posts, in and of themselves, particularly objectionable. They are arguments and presented as arguments inviting debate, objections and criticism.
As arguments they will be crticised either in form (the structure of the argument, its persuasiveness, logicality of propositions, coherence etc) or in substance (accuracy and completness of fact, political, sociological historical knowledge etc).
In the post-modern theoretical world you should also expect a foundational ideological interrogation in the sense of ‘where are you coming from?’ ‘what is your bias or the appearance of bias’, in short what is your ‘real view’ and what is your ‘real agenda’.
You should be able to address these ‘real arguments’ as they are, conventionally speaking,’reasonable’ whether or not they are, strictly speaking, civil.
Of course some people will respond to you reflexively, unreasonably and irrationally either because that is what they do, or, more likely because of their own preconceived ideas on the issues or what they believe to be your ‘agenda’.
It is your reaction to criticism that I find extraordinary and I think it is here that you lose sympathy.
Of course you do not have to respond to actual abuse, however, the use of a wholly conventional ‘you say’ or ‘your writing shows’ or even ‘your argument is rubbish’ is not abuse, nor is it, even, personal criticism, so it looks like you are trying to duck an argument when you characterise a person’s argument as personal attack.
You consistently isolate one or two words from a commenter’s criticisms and then portray the entirety as a ‘vile, nasty’ personal attack, or worse, accuse all critics of accusing you of wanting to destroy Israel (no-one has done that on this thread).
You should not have such a thick skin if you really believe your arguments are defendable. Just defend your positions by argument not by reference to your jewish or israeli friends who think the same way.
I am not bothered by the ‘There’s no blaming the Zionists for this one.’ as I found it perfectly explained by the previous;
Hisham’s Palace is in West Bank Area A, which, in Oslo-speak, means it’s under Palestinian jurisdiction. In other words its scandalous state (imagine leaving a Rembrandt out for a few hours in Trafalgar Square) is entirely the fault of the Palestinian Authority. There’s no blaming the Zionists for this one..
I found this the most pointless reason for people to criticise your post as one should have been able to read this straightforwardly (without any need for sarcasm emoticons) as a statement saying; that unlike other historical/religious sites of importance to Muslims and Arabs and Palestinians, for which Palestinian accusations of neglect have been made, the Hisham Palace is solely the responsibility of the PA.
On the other hand there are many valid criticisms of the post and of your general sense of ‘balance’ which lead, arguably, to a biased or less than impartial account.
For example Nate while not disguising the fact that he does not like your articles, has made many valid criticisms of the underlying assumptions guiding your choice of subject matter being based on an actual political fact of UNESCO having recognised Palestine as a state (obliquely referenced) while framing it as a purely hypothetical point of what UNESCO might do for Palestinians.
Nate’s arguments are not inherently unreasonable and deserve a reasoned response.
Notwithstanding Nate’s expressed dislike of your arguments and articles, Matt Hill, he did not personally attack or abuse you.
Only the final line of Nate’s post stated ‘So… What is your point Matt’. The fact that there was relevant prior content and argument is clear from the ‘So…… It was;
UNESCO could play a part in resolving the conflict, by calling for compromise and admitting the heritage claims of both nations on that land, but it has played a very poisonous and politicized role that fixing up a mosaic wouldn’t undo. So… what is your point Matt?
Yet you chose to respond to Nate in this way;
So… what is your point Matt?
That Israel should be destroyed, Nate, and all the Jews pushed into the sea. I decided to cunningly disguise my evil views with a call for a cultural agency to do something about the neglect of a historic relic. You found me out, though. What can I say?
Quite a gobsmackingly idiotic reply, the arrogance of which is only matched by your apparent ignorance of UNESCO, it’s mission, it’s programmes and it’s biased history in relation to Israel/Palestine.
If the parallel theme of this post has been selective quoting out of context and a faux literal reading of that selection, then when you say;
‘What can I say?’ I have to say an awful lot more, or alternatively an awful lot less but more directly.
You could start with UNESCO and it’s actual programmatic history, given that you based your post on what you think they should do to symbolise and further Palestinian statehood, now put in jeopardy by it’s own actions.
It is not all about the perfidious US and it’s eternal subterfuge you know.
| 22 November 2011, 12:17 am |
Sarka,
Sorry for the delay; I did link to the mosaic in the post. Here it is (scroll down to bottom):
I confess I’d be glad to have someone explain the allegory to me (or at least give a convincing interpretation).
| 22 November 2011, 12:57 am |
RE: And UNESCO certainly doesn’t act in keeping with this “reasonable” idea, nor do any Arabs who I have seen or read in opining on this matter.
Have I ever said that UNESCO or, for that matter, most Arabs or Muslims who have an opinion on this are reasonable? They certainly don’t behave that way.
| 22 November 2011, 1:00 am |
RE: But if it’s taken to mean that the Jews have more of a ‘right’ to the Temple Mount than the Muslims, I can’t agree.
That wasn’t how it was meant, Matt. That being said, I think it’s quite cheeky for Muslims to go on and on about Jerusalem when (a) their holiest sites are elsewhere; (b) they (in this case Jordan) treated Jerusalem rather shabbily when they held it); and (c) Israel does share the temple mount, whereas it seems unlikely a Palestinian state controlling the temple mount would.
| 22 November 2011, 2:11 am |
vildechaye,
Ok, I didn’t say that’s how you meant it; I was just clarifying my own view. I agree with points b) and c), in the main, though I think the argument that the Palestinians shouldn’t ‘go on’ about Jerusalem, because the holiest Muslim sites are elsewhere, is a little misleading. Jerusalem is considered by Palestinians their capital city. That isn’t some innovative notion, cynically invented to annoy Jews. It was true long before the Six-Day War. To say the Palestinians should give up Jerusalem is like saying that the British should have no problem giving up London, because christians still have the Vatican.
However I also understand the integral importance of the Temple Mount to Jews. Which is why, ultimately, the two sides must somehow learn to share sovereignty over the compound. (Yes, Israel shares access but not sovereignty, and has often closed the Dome of the Rock or prevented young men from worshipping there – hardly the worst crimes in the world, I grant you, but illustration that it’s not fully shared in the sense it ought to be, with neither side having ultimate control. This is probably the most difficult issue to solve in any potential peace deal.
mettaculture,
Much of what you say is very fair, including your criticisms of me. I’ll have to address them tomorrow though, as it’s past my bed time.
| 22 November 2011, 2:16 am |
Matt Hill:
As a matter of historic/demographic fact, Jerusalem remained primarily a Jewish centre until well into the 20th century. If I recall correctly, a majority of Jerusalem’s Arab/Palestinian/non-Jewish population arrived after the ‘67 war.
| 22 November 2011, 2:39 am |
Matt,
Your reflex to go to the furthest extreme in your response to me, is more than a little immature. I am not saying or even implying that your true intention is Israel’s destruction, although you show very little understanding and sympathy for the reality in which it exists. I don’t find your post to be racist, anti-Semitic, or even hostile… just slight. I honestly don’t see the point of this post in a world where the topic has so much more to discuss. It’s more sentimentalism that treats the Palestinians as victims (if not of the west, then of their own leadership) without acknowledging more ugly truths. Like why is it that the ICC, which is mired in the politics of the UN would never vote in Israel’s favor? Why is it that UNESCO could never be expected to act in the way you imply they would? Why would you even have such an expectation from a body that has ruled Rachel’s tomb a mosque? Why would the US cut funding? Why do you even bring up the idea of American “subterfuge”? Why would young men be kept from the Temple Mount? And, where did this idea of Palestine having a capital in Jerusalem even come from, if you truly don’t believe it to be a spiteful political move (which Jerusalem has always played to Muslims)? If the PLO in ‘64 proclaimed that they had no claim to the West Bank (which was under Jordanian control), how does that reconcile with your assertion that Palestinians have always considered Jerusalem to be their capital? These are questions of substance. Your post doesn’t address anything of any importance, and attempts to make a cause where none exists. All it does is perpetuate your sense of Palestinian victimhood as a people who need to be helped in “rising from their ruins”. Mettaculture, thanks for putting the rest of my arguments into more level-headed words! (that wasn’t sarcastic).
Your reflex to go to the furthest extreme in your response to me, is more than a little immature. I am not saying or even implying that your true intention is Israel’s destruction, although you show very little understanding and sympathy for the reality in which it exists. I don’t find your post to be racist, anti-Semitic, or even hostile… just slight. I honestly don’t see the point of this post in a world where the topic has so much more to discuss. It’s more sentimentalism that treats the Palestinians as victims (if not of the west, then of their own leadership) without acknowledging more ugly truths. Like why is it that the ICC, which is mired in the politics of the UN would never vote in Israel’s favor? Why is it that UNESCO could never be expected to act in the way you imply they would? Why would you even have such an expectation from a body that has ruled Rachel’s tomb a mosque? Why would the US cut funding? Why do you even bring up the idea of American “subterfuge”? Why would young men be kept from the Temple Mount? And, where did this idea of Palestine having a capital in Jerusalem even come from, if you truly don’t believe it to be a spiteful political move (which Jerusalem has always played to Muslims)? If the PLO in ‘64 proclaimed that they had no claim to the West Bank (which was under Jordanian control), how does that reconcile with your assertion that Palestinians have always considered Jerusalem to be their capital? These are questions of substance. Your post doesn’t address anything of any importance, and attempts to make a cause where none exists. All it does is perpetuate your sense of Palestinian victimhood as a people who need to be helped in “rising from their ruins”. Mettaculture, thanks for putting the rest of my arguments into more level-headed words! (that wasn’t sarcastic).
| 22 November 2011, 2:51 am |
Matt
I sent you a link to a video in which Alan Dershowitz spoke of a discussion he had with Fayyad regarding Jerusalem. Did you watch it?
Fayyad was at least honest when he said the city was a matter of ‘location, location, location’. In other words, the Palestinian claim was less one of the heart or a national/cultural claim and more a case of knowing that it means so much to the Jews that it was seen as a highly valuable bargaining chip for land elsewhere in Israel.
It seems to me that when you view negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, you tend to factor out, or consider unimportant, the consequences that occur when one nation – in this case the Arab nation – attacks another (three times) and loses. Maybe I’m wrong but you seem to believe that despite these wars and terrorism the clock should be re-set to 1947.
I also sent you a link to Eugene Rostow’s paper about the legality of the settlements and Res 242. As he co-wrote this resolution, his commentary should be seen as pretty sound. Did you read it?
| 22 November 2011, 5:08 am |
” Jerusalem is considered by Palestinians their capital city… It was true long before the Six-Day War…”
References?
| 22 November 2011, 5:19 am |
Matt: I never said Palestinians shouldn’t go on about Jerusalem (though it should be noted that by the 1840s (i.e. not the 1940s, the 1840s), Jews were the majority population in Jerusalem. I was referring to Muslims, as the discussion at that point was about religion, not nations or nationalities.
| 22 November 2011, 6:37 am |
Matt – I left a comment on your blog which is of relevance to Nate’s point, raising two stories about sites in Israel.
The first story is one I came across through a reference to it from a pro-Palestinian commenter. When I looked into it further I felt that the story had been twisted, eg glossing over the fact the site had been used as a car park for years. So when I came across a reference to this other story about complaints about demolishing the Moroccan bridge – I was open to the possibility that this was also exaggerated or distorted. I haven’t really investigated it though. I wondered if you, or other commenters, had views about the stories.
| 22 November 2011, 7:46 am |
This is a very important subject on a much wider basis than just the preservation of the Hisham’s Palace mosaic. All over the Middle East important archaeological sites are in danger of being lost to humankind due to a combination of factors, including political ones.
The aspect of this cited by Abu Faris above is a very important one – ie the negation of other cultures by political/religious extremists. One only has to remember the destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan, the looting of the museum in Cairo last January or the continuing deterioration and vandalising of Yehezkel’s tomb in Iraq to see that this is a much broader issue. It is also a subject which I would suggest Matt Hill study further as it may contribute to his understanding of the region as a whole.
As others have pointed out above, there are literally dozens of important sites all over Judea, Samaria and Gaza which are in grave danger not merely due to a lack of resources (which could be solved by organisations such as UNESCO) but because archaeology has become a political weapon in attempts to dictate the ‘narrative’.
If UNESCO (big ‘if’) really intends to be of use, then one of its first tasks must be to educate on the fact that these sites belong to mankind as a whole and as such must be preserved.
One dreads to think what has become, for example, of the 6th century synagogue in Gaza.
It is also important that Matt Hill should recognise that under the Oslo Accords there was supposed to be free access to – and conservation of – all sites of religious significance to Jews located in areas A&B. Those conditions are not upheld and yet we have not heard a peep from the ‘international community’.
| 22 November 2011, 8:10 am |
Its been said above “What is the point of this post?” So, I will repeat what others have said.
The story is “Palestinians fail to look after heritage antiquity”. Since UNESCO could have identified this many years ago then what has the recent membership of the Palestinians actually got to do with the necessity to have done it previously? The Global Heritage fund has already alerted us to its state.
What has the red-herring of USA defunding of UNESCO got to do with the story? If countries had been concerned at the lack of Palestinian interest in antiquities they could/should have spoken out by now.
Why does the West seem to care more about the site than the Arabs and Muslims who’s heritage it is? Since its a site of importance to Muslims then why haven’t Arab countries taken an interest? Why hasn’t Turkey said something. After all it wishes to be a major Islamic influence in the Middle East and at one time Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. A fact that causes Matt Hill’s girlfriend to giggle like a five-year old! Wouldn’t they have just a little bit of interest in the plight of an Islamic antiquity in an area they not only ruled but under the influence of the Palestinians who they support?
Wouldn’t ANY Muslim country wish to maintain its heritage sites? Why is it that its the West expected to take interest?
| 22 November 2011, 8:15 am |
” Jerusalem is considered by Palestinians their capital city… It was true long before the Six-Day War…”
References?
I’m guessing that this ridiculous claim comes from Jordan’s illegal invasion of Palestine and capturing Jerusalem in 1948. Subsequently they were kicked out in 1967 and Jerusalem reverted back to Jewish control. After all, it is Israel’s capital. Far longer than any Arab claim Jews have always ended prayers with “Next year in Jerusalem”. Arab Muslim claims are based on a fairy story.
| 22 November 2011, 9:06 am |
Let’s remember that Matt Hill completely ignored the issue of Res 242 when he previously commented that Israel refused to define its borders. If someone doesn’t even grasp the most fundamental and basic fact about the I/P conflict then what credibility does he have as a commentator? What a household! A g/f who laughs at the idea that The Ottoman Empire ever had anything to do with “Palestine” or that Turkey might show an interest in a site of Islamic antiquity. Birds of a feather, eh?
| 22 November 2011, 9:22 am |
Jerusalem is considered by Palestinians their capital city. That isn’t some innovative notion, cynically invented to annoy Jews. It was true long before the Six-Day War.
Well Matt how long ago was “long before”?
There were no such people as “Palestinians” in the definition of the current people called “Palestinians” at any time prior to the 1967 war. “Palestinians” can only come about by having a place called “Palestine” and that happened in 1922.
Wikipedia:
The history of a distinct Palestinian national identity is a disputed issue amongst scholars.[23] According to legal historian Assaf Likhovski, the prevailing view is that Palestinian identity originated in the early decades of the twentieth century
The term “Palestinians” referred to Arabs and Jews in Palestine until 1948 when the Jews of Palestine (aka “Palestinians”) became Israelis. You can “regard” Jerusalem as your capital but does history and legality support it. Unless you are a definable legally recognised state and entity you cannot have a capital city. Capital of what?
The current Palestinians have their capital in (Ramallah or Nablus – not sure which). Its where you go to meet the Palestinians and their seat of power and legislature.
The claims of the current Palestinians are based on religion and they hate the idea that Al Aqsa is in Israeli territory. Well tough! They are free to worship there, until they start stoning and rioting again.
Jerusalem is NOT the capital city of a Palestinian State and never will be.
| 22 November 2011, 9:39 am |
Let’s remember that Matt Hill completely ignored the issue of Res 242 when he previously commented that Israel refused to define its borders. If someone doesn’t even grasp the most fundamental and basic fact about the I/P conflict then what credibility does he have as a commentator?
This is abject nonsense. Nowhere does Matt say or imply anything that ignores the reality that a final resolution on borders will be the result of negotiation as called for in res.242. Why do you continue too insist otherwise?
The unfinished business of res.242 does not preclude Israel from stating a claim, which is why earlier comparisons to Kashmir, Cyprus and Ireland in earlier threads won’t wash. Indeed, the very fact Israel refuses to articulate an unequivocal territorial claim is entirely unhelpful and, in my view, deliberately so.
| 22 November 2011, 9:49 am |
Barad,
“I don’t think Jonathan cook is in any way comparable to Hitler, and I think it’s shameful of you to resort to such analogies so easily. I do not believe Jonathan cook has killed six million Jews, though as always I am ready to change my view if you can provide evidence to the contrary.”
Matt, forgive me for finding you dim in your response but I was not comparing Cook to Hitler, I was commenting on your willingness to turn a blind eye to very unpleasant opinions because you are fascinated with the subject matter or you find you agree with some of what Cook has to say. Seriously, have you just started an undergrad course of some kind?
More generally, non-Jews and non-Arabs with no connection to I-P make me extremely suspicious, especially when you appear both strident and pretty ignorant of the situation, which has nothing to do with you in any event (funny how white, left wing activists are often solely concerned with IP but usually no other conflict in the world-I wonder why that is?). Still, yay Palestine, hate those Zionazis etc…
| 22 November 2011, 10:00 am |
The opprobrium heaped on Matt for what ought to have been viewed as a pretty uncontroversial article is a shameful indictment of this blog. I realise that 90% of the people here seem only to want to write about and discuss one issue (more’s the pity), but we ought to be able to find room for more than one perspective.
The bad faith argumentation form DCook, Barad and that fucking moron Peter is to be expected, but there are other more lucid and less batshit-crazy commenters (and authors) who ought to know better.
| 22 November 2011, 10:13 am |
Barad – Matt has family connections with Israel and spends half the year there. I really don’t think ’strident’ is the adjective which first comes to mind to describe him, and your last sentence seems completely unearned by his post. I disagree with some of Matt’s views, and agree with some of the criticisms raised here. I’ve been persuaded to adjust my own views and preconceptions about some of these issues myself through following HP of course.
| 22 November 2011, 10:42 am |
No, but, yeah, but…I appreciate Matt’s anxiety about the destruction of a beautiful work of art, but I think he reveals a lot of confusion. He remarks ‘how would Londoners feel if London was taken over by foriegners?’. Maybe it’s me, but London doesn’t have that sort of emotional appeal to the British. It is not a case of geography, more of culture. He compounds that with remarks about the Vatican. Well, hello, Christendom is not solely teh Catholic church, and many sacred sites for the various types of Christain are dotted around the world. So, that strieks me as fallacious reasoning. Just admit, Matt, that for Palestinians, old bricks and mortar are not important. Why, in Mecca, sites associated with Mohammed have been built over, ostenbily on the grounds that they don’t want to encourge idolatry, but surprisingly, they are valuable real estate.
| 22 November 2011, 10:47 am |
Sarah, the only family connections I remember reading about were an old Palestinian girlfriend. I absolutely stand by my last paragraph-that is my experience of such people and I am sick to death of them.
And the tedious Brownie is still sulking at me because I do not hero-worship Blair or think he was did much other than harm to the UK, so everything I say on any subject is “batshit crazy”.
Feel absolutely free to change your own opinions, as I do if properly persuaded but I am not in this case.
| 22 November 2011, 10:50 am |
“He remarks ‘how would Londoners feel if London was taken over by foriegners?’.”
Clearly he hasn’t been to London lately…
| 22 November 2011, 11:16 am |
Barad – he really does know Israel very well – which is not the same as knowing all the history, but does explain his interest. I entirely sympathise with your irritation at a certain sort of ‘pro-Palestinian’ – it was people like that who made me start seeking out more info because they seemed so objectionable. Even though I (and some of you much more so than me) don’t see quite eye to eye with Matt, I think he’s completely different from that type, and his starting point seems to be a genuine concern for both Israelis and Palestinians – which seems terribly basic, but is not something I’m often aware of in Palestinian advocacy. For example I came acrross someone saying something like ‘it is up the Palestinians to decide their destiny’ WRT the one state/two state question – but there was no indication that person had the slightest interest in what Israelis might think – s/he seemed terribly concerned about Palestinian self-determination but not at all about Jewish/Israeli self-determination.
| 22 November 2011, 11:31 am |
“The unfinished business of res.242 does not preclude Israel from stating a claim, which is why earlier comparisons to Kashmir, Cyprus and Ireland in earlier threads won’t wash. Indeed, the very fact Israel refuses to articulate an unequivocal territorial claim is entirely unhelpful and, in my view, deliberately so.”
If Israel had made an unequivocal claim to anything less than the exact pre-67 borders, it would have been accused of unilaterally trying to impose its will and conquer part of the “Palestinian/Arab” lands. This would have been used as proof that Israel doesn’t want peace even if the offer they made included a willingness to establish a Palestinian state on most of the 67 ocupied land.
Conversely, if Israel made an unequivocal claim that followed the pre-67 borders exactly, then it would have given up — before negotiation and with nothing in return — on the diplomatic gain the had in 242, which allowed flexibility on the issue of borders. And they would have given up on all it’s border related concerns, namely Jerusalem, security and settlement blocks: all of the issues where it needs negotiating flexibility with relation to the pre-67 borders.
So it is against Israel interest to commit to any borders before negotiations since it would be used against it either way without giving Israel any benefits.
At best what Israel could (and in my opinion should) do, would be to say something like “based n the 67 borders.” But you can be sure that a statement like that would gain Israel only very little good will from anybody — certainly not from the Palestinians themselves.
| 22 November 2011, 11:32 am |
I read the post (did not read who wrote it), didn’t think that it was anti-Israeli. The only thing that was strange was how come a Jew (I assumed the writer was an Israeli Jew) was free to roam abandoned places near Jericho, where he could run the risk of being kidnapped or killed by Palestinians.
Then I read “Matt Hill” and suddenly I saw the light. The writer was a foreigner and he enjoys pleasures that are denied to Israeli Jews. Ok.
| 22 November 2011, 11:36 am |
basic fact about the I/P conflict then what credibility does he have as a commentator?
This is abject nonsense. Nowhere does Matt say or imply anything that ignores the reality that a final resolution on borders will be the result of negotiation as called for in res.242. Why do you continue too insist otherwise?
Because he asserted that Israel has not/will not declare its borders in his previous (crap) thread. That means he completely ignored Res 242 preventing Israel to agreeing a border unless its linked to peace and security by discussion with the Palestinians. SInce the Palestinians refuse to discuss it then the borders can’t be created.
Perhaps you should try and be a bit smarter rather than shooting from the lip.
| 22 November 2011, 11:51 am |
Sarah, I do hear your points. I will confess to (very often) a gut response these days to anti-Israeli sentiments and people, although I hate to say it seems justified more often than not.
| 22 November 2011, 11:59 am |
I might add Sarah that reading that the Cave of the Partiachs and Temple Mount are considered by the author as indisputably Arab Muslim sites (through ignorance or deceit ignoring their far longer Jewish significance before the Arab conquest and the invention of Islam) are just the sort of thing to produce aforesaid gut reaction.
Knowing that the supposedly moderate PA as well as Hamas, IJ et al deny any Jewish connection whatsoever to the land and Islamize or erase historic Jewish sites accordingly, makes such deceptive statements of false fact by Western Palestinian cheerleaders doubly galling.
| 22 November 2011, 1:13 pm |
Thanks Matt for the full link. Quite obviously my tile is based on the Hisham design…
On the status of Jerusalem, you could do worse than to read the very recently published and mainly rave-reviewed history of Jerusalem by Sebag-Montefiore. This isn’t a polemical work about IP, but an amazingly interesting and engaging total history, full of vignettes, with plenty of sympathy for Palestinians for you to approve of…
You may have already read it, but I doubt that – given your rather simplistic notion of its status for Palestinians as capital. Of course it was (at some times but not others) important as symbol for Arabs (Muslim and Christian) local and in the wider area. It was sometimes (not always by any means) a focus of regional and wider power politics. But the idea of it as some traditional national “capital” for a “Palestinian people” ( comparable, for example – to the historic feeling for Prague as national capital that Czechs have had for centuries) is a retro creation associated with the emergence of the idea of a distinctive (Arab) Palestinian nation as a counter to Zionist ideas.
| 22 November 2011, 1:14 pm |
Hello all,
I’m back to reply to as many comments as possible. Sorry if it takes a while – I’m trying to work at the same time. Plus I’m writing on a phone, so apologies for the inevitable typos.
One quick point that touches on what Nate and mettaculture said above, but has a general application too. Apparently I failed to address some good points Nate made, instead replying defensively or sarcastically. Apologies for that. But nate’s post started with ‘I dont know why you’re allowed to write here’ and ended with ‘I can’t understand such rubbish / what is your point?’ now I’m sorry if there was some real gold in between those comments but I guess I didn’t feel like sifting through the ad hominem to find his good points. I think I contribute quite a bit below the line, and I even reply to posts that stray a long way from the topic and civility. Sorry if I don’t reply to every one. I notice there’s this idea I’ve been evading some point about UN res. 242 – if someone will be good enough to make that point again, in plain terms – perhaps in the form of a proposition which I’ll then agree or disagree with – I’d be grateful.
One more general comment. I realise that, because of some of my other stated views (which I don’t retract) there’s this idea that I’m some sort of raving pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel nutcase out there. A lot of the criticisms directed at me are expressed as comments about ‘your kind of person’. I’d just like to briefly explain why I think this is a misconception.
Yes, I have all kinds of views that I’m sure most HP readers strongly reject. I also have several views which most pro-Palestinian campaigners hate. (for instance, I don’t believe in the ‘right of return’ for the so-called ‘refugees’; also, I don’t see why the Palestinians shouldn’t agree to recognise Israel as a ‘Jewish state’, so long as this doesn’t prejudice the equality of non-Jewish Israelis.) that’s why David T, one of this site’s editors, has said I’m really a ‘liberal Zionist’ – and he’s not the first to say so. I don’t use that term myself, but I don’t strongly reject it either.
The reason i perhaps show my more pro-Palestinian side at times here is because I want to have a debate. I also write for Liberal Conspiracy, and I recently got sick of preaching to the choir, as it were. I could come on HP and preach about how many of the so-called Palestinian refugees arent really refugees at all, but grandchildren of the original refugees who are being denied their rights by Arab governments using them as a human reproach to Israel, and talk about how disgusting that is. But everyone would just agree, which would be boring (although at this point I wouldn’t be surprise if it was somehow interpreted as a foaming attack on Israel).
So in my desire to provoke debate, I’ve evidently been cast as a certain kind of person. I don’t deny I support Palestinian statehood in very strong terms, but you’re mistaken if you think I’m a stereotypical pro-Palestinian activist. I’m not and won’t claim I agree with everything, or even most things, the average HP readers thinks. But you might be surprised by how much we agree on. If you think I wish any harm to Israel or its civilians, bear in mind my parents are Israeli civilians – and so am I, for much of the year.
And finally: this really is a post about the PA’s scandalous neglect of a cultural treasure. Those who think I’ve programmed an attack on Israel into it are giving me credit for more subtlety than I possess, alas.
| 22 November 2011, 1:21 pm |
Sarka,
I have read the Simon Sebag Montefieore book, and yes, you’re right – I should qualify my claim about Jerusalem. It has always been considered the main religious site in what we would call historic Palestine or greater Israel by its Arab inhabitants. It was not always the ‘capital’ in the modern sense – for instance, many would argue Jaffa was the intellectual and cultural centre of pre-48 Palestine. And I certainly don’t deny its pre-eminence for Jews, and if I’m not mistaken Jews became a majority there at some point in the 19th C. It’s probably, for these reasons nd others, the most difficult issue to solve in any future peace deal.
| 22 November 2011, 1:34 pm |
Mettaculture,
I hope my long reply above answered some of your points in your long post, above. Yes, I realise many of my views would count me out of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and, believe me, I have a lot of contempt for lit of people in those groups. One of these days I’ll write an article lambasting them for thir inflexibility, parochialism, their idealisation of the ‘oppressed’, their tolerance for anti-semitism, and the way they sometimes harm the Palestinian cause by appearing unreasonable, strident and insensitive. But I’ll probably find a pro-Palestinian site to post it at.
Yes, I have a pretty good idea of the Arab/Palestinian milieu. I spend much of each yer living in Nazareth.
I understand I hour expect an interrogation of my fundamental values and worldview, and how they relate to my more specific views. Fundamentally I’m an enlightenment rationalist, humanist, liberal, social democratic, feminist, egalitarian, secularist atheist.
You make a lot of good points, including your criticisms of me, so thanks.
| 22 November 2011, 1:35 pm |
Sorry, the predictive text on this machine sometimes comes up with some weird formulations! Hope you can understand my point.
| 22 November 2011, 1:37 pm |
“[Jerusalem] It’s probably, for these reasons nd others, the most difficult issue to solve in any future peace deal.”
Not really. The Jerusalem issue is completely one of trust and goodwill. If there was trust and goodwill then the Israelis and Palestinians would find some way to share custody of all the historical/religious sites that would protect all of them and respect the religious sensibilities of both sides. But since it serves the interest of many to turn Jerusalem into a contentious religious rallying point, it becomes a difficulty.
The most difficult issue to solve is the refugees, materially, ideologically and diplomatically.
| 22 November 2011, 1:41 pm |
Penny,
Where did you send me these links? Thanks, I will follow them and respond when I’m able to.
But I don’t believe the clock should be set back to 1947 or even pre-1967. Unfortunately it’s hard for me to link on this device but google ‘Palestinian proposal Annapolis 2008′ and compare it to the Israeli proposal. I think a resolution will fall somewhere between those positions (though I recognise there are other issues, like refugees and Jerusalem).
| 22 November 2011, 1:43 pm |
Sarah AB,
I hope you don’t mind if I follow up those stories later. I’ll post a full reply, perhaps on my blog where you originally posted them. Sorry for the delay.
| 22 November 2011, 2:02 pm |
Israeli nurse,
Thanks for that interesting post. Yes, I understand your implication, which is that throughout the Arab world there’s a tendency to neglect cultural sites, to use archaeology and history as a political weapon, so Hisham’s Palace is a symptom of a wider problem. I don’t disagree with that at all – unfortunately there is a major strain of parochialism in Arab culture, which I hope is changing slowly due to the Arab Spring and the Internet (though I also recognise the danger that things may be going in the opposite direction). Yes, Israel is better at preserving cultural sites, including non-Jewish ones.
As a caveat though, I must also point out that sprawl uses archaeology as a political weapon at times too. On my visit to Jericho, which as you know has many incredible historical and cultural sites of interest, I also visited Qumran, here the DeadbSea Scrolls were discovered. Before entering the site, you’re invited to watch a video about the history of the site. Now Qumran is under Israeli jurisdiction. The video we were shown was almost pure jingoistic propaganda: it spent much more time insisting that the site and environs were a Jewish area than telling us anything of historical value. By contrast, a similar video at Hisham’s Palace was totally non-political and very informative.
I don’t want to draw too much conclusion from this point, except to say both sides in this debate are prone to use history as a politicl tool.
As for your point (and Fabian Ben Israel’s) about Israelis not being allowed to visit these sites, I think I’m right in saying that is a provision of one of the renegotiations of the Oslo Accords. It’s not true that an Israeli would be lynched in Jericho! The town used to be a resort for pleasure-seeking Israelis before the aforementioned provision, and everyone I spoke to in Jericho told me how th town is suffering from the LACK of Israeli tourism, and how they’re desperate for the Israelis to be allowed back! The town used to have a huge casino that’s been closed since Israelis can no longer come and spend their money there. Do you agree with me that a way must be found for arabs and Jews to have full access to all areas of the West Bank?
| 22 November 2011, 2:10 pm |
That means he completely ignored Res 242 preventing Israel to agreeing a border unless its linked to peace and security by discussion with the Palestinians.
He “ignored” no such thing because he did not contend that Israel could or should be agreeing borders that are not linked to peace and security. What is more – unless you are Peter under a different moniker – you *must* know this.
You keep using res.242 as reason why Israel must continue to deny the world any insight into what she thinks her territorial spread should like. That’s bogus in itself, but to pretend that anyone asking for Israel to state a position is therefore ignorant of res.242 displays the very ignorance that you are none too shy ascribing to others.
You could argue (per Micha) that doing so is not in Israel’s best interest, but this is an entirely different argument to claims that 242 precludes the possibility of Israel stating a position.
Perhaps you should try and be a bit smarter rather than shooting from the lip.
Dcook, your problem is that as well as believing you are about seven times smarter than you really are, you also think anyone disagreeing with you is somehow dim. Your repeated claim that interlocutors who pick up on your misunderstandings are lacking in grey matter is quickly becoming your defining characteristic. It means you come across as a boorish oaf. I can’t believe you are like this in real life. Are you?
Micha,
I anticipated this response and I do have a little sympathy for it. I have no doubt that there are some who will use any stated claim by Israel (short of handing the PA everything they demand) as evidence of preconditions, intransigence, etc., but I still think that on balance it would help rather than hinder a peace process to have some firm understanding of the starting point of all parties concerned, including Israel’s opening gambit on borders.
As stated previously, I also believe that it suits this particular Israeli administration down to the ground to leave border claims undefined for reasons that have nothing to do with the (partly) justifiable concerns you cite and are, unfortunately, all too obvious.
| 22 November 2011, 2:15 pm |
Micha,
I think we coul have an interesting debate about that. I’ve always felt the refugee issue is easy to solve. No right of return to Israel. Full right of return to the Palestinian state. Substantial compensation. (How much do you think the US, UN, EU etc would NOT pay to make this issue go away?) Plus a symbolic number, in the tens of thousands, of the original refugees allowed to return to effect family reunions. (Cynical as this may sound, these refugees will be too old to start families and alter Israel’s demographic balance.)
Now that is a solution Israel could live with. Thevquestion is, could the Palestinians? Well, we know moderate Palestinian opinion-makers have been promoting this solution for years – look up Sari Nusseibeh (a hero of mine). As for the PA, we know it has accepted this outcome from the leaked ‘Palestine Papers’. And, perhaps most surprisingly, polls have shown that a majority of the refugees would also accept this solution. Yes, there are polls and polls. But I think we have reason to be optimistic that the more moderate inclinations of people will win out IF a peace deal is put in front of them, backed by the world, and negotiated by a credible leader.
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this. I may be wrong,mof course.
| 22 November 2011, 2:18 pm |
More news on the how the culturally sensitive Palestinians are protecting the archaeology of Jewrusalem.
What a pathetic bunch. But then we know that.
As for Matt, well you gotta say the boy does hang in there. You know, I imagine some of his best friends really are Jews (and not just Norman Finklestein, whom he admires).
| 22 November 2011, 2:20 pm |
Brownie,
Thanks for your comments. Even if we disagree on many things (which we probably do), it’s a relief to find someone who seems eminently sane and reasonable here, and willing to take people on in the face of howling opprobrium.
And, yes, I wouldn’t normally be so rude, but Dcook overestimates his intelligence to an absurd degree. It’s stupefying. And I don’t mind saying that some of my harshest critics here – like Alan A – are obviously intelligent.
| 22 November 2011, 2:25 pm |
“still think that on balance it would help rather than hinder a peace process to have some firm understanding of the starting point of all parties concerned, including Israel’s opening gambit on borders.”
If Israel gave any opening gambit on borders that was not complete capitulation to Palestinian demands, then it would reduce it’s flexibility to negotiate while gaining nothing in return.
“I also believe that it suits this particular Israeli administration down to the ground to leave border claims undefined for reasons that have nothing to do with the (partly) justifiable concerns you cite and are, unfortunately, all too obvious.”
Yet even this government’s stated position is that there will be a Palestinian state in the West Bank. So even a right wing Israel is talking in terms of withdrawal. The question is only one of quantity. Moreover, we also know that both Livni’s party and Labor have made pretty extensive offers as far as the amount of territory is concerned. So it should be pretty clear what the intentions of Israel are. So what’s the benefit of putting anything more at the table at this stage, except that the Palestinians will pocket that offer while saying that it is not enough and proves Israeli does not want peace.
“It’s not true that an Israeli would be lynched in Jericho!”
It would be extremely irresponsible for any Israeli to put that theory to the test unless he is coming as part of a left-wing delegation.
| 22 November 2011, 2:27 pm |
Michael Rabins,
You seem to be implying I’m an anti-Semite. I’d be grateful if you would state plainly that you think I’m racist towards Jews, or make clear that you don’t think that.
I’ve posted two public pieces about Finkelstein, both of them critical (I.e. they were framed as criticisms, they didn’t just include criticisms). But some of his scholarship is excllent. If you have any reason to gainsay, for instance, his demolition job on Joan Peters – which destroyed the reputation of a widely praised author and book – there are many scholarly journals waiting for your contribution.
You won’t find a single sentence where I’ve praised some of Finkelstein’s more extreme views – on the contrary, in fact.
| 22 November 2011, 2:36 pm |
Barad,
I’m glad you’ve said you’ll retract your view if I prove it wrong. So your claim that I have no connection to Israel is wrong. My parents live there. I live there much of the time. I won’t start telling you about all my friends and links on both sides. Will you admit now you were wrong?
You were also wrong when you said I haven’t been to London lately if I don’t think it’s been taken over by foreigners. Now that IS racist, and I don’t mind saying so. In fact, it slightly disgusts me, since my girlfriend – with whom I live, in London, you ignorant racist fucking cunt – is of Indian descent.
So you were wrong on two counts. I live in both Israel and london. No, it has not been taken over by foreigners, you moron. And if you think you’re not a racist cunt, you’re wrong on three counts. I’ll only reply to you again if you retract or explain your comments.
Write a comment