Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Arabs v Jews or Israelis v Palestinians?
- John P. Heptonstall (21 November 2004)
-
Re: Arabs v Jews or Israelis v Palestinians?
- irwin j mansdorf (23 November 2004)
-
Re: Re: Arabs v Jews or Israelis v Palestinians?
- John P. Heptonstall (11 December 2004)
-
Re: Arabs v Jews or Israelis v Palestinians?
- irwin j mansdorf (14 December 2004)
-
Re: Re: Arabs v Jews or Israelis v Palestinians?
- John P. Heptonstall (15 December 2004)
-
Re: Arabs v Jews or Israelis v Palestinians?
- Irwin J Mansdorf (17 December 2004)
-
Re: Re: Arabs v Jews or Israelis v Palestinians?
- John P. Heptonstall (19 December 2004)
-
Re: Arabs v Jews or Israelis v Palestinians?
- irwin j mansdorf (20 December 2004)
-
Re: Re: Arabs v Jews or Israelis v Palestinians?
- John P Heptonstall (23 December 2004)
-
Re: Re: Re: Arabs v Jews or Israelis v Palestinians?
- irwin j mansdorf (26 December 2004)
-
Re: Re: Re: Re: Arabs v Jews or Israelis v Palestinians?
- John P. Heptonstall (3 January 2005)
-
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arabs v Jews or Israelis v Palestinians?
- Peter Morrell (4 January 2005)
-
Re: Arabs v Jews or Israelis v Palestinians?
- irwin j mansdorf (5 January 2005)
-
Re: Re: Arabs v Jews or Israelis v Palestinians?
- John P. Heptonstall (6 January 2005)
|
|
|||
|
John P. Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre. Practitioner of TCM -acu LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir The longstanding conflict is indeed one of the tragedies of the century for both sides, and humanity in general. I wonder if Mansdorf can explain what he means by his statement "Any reasonable and objective observer of the longstanding conflict between Arabs and Jews understands that the situation is not as prejudicially simple as Summerfield would have us believe" in that I thought the conflict was of Israelis against Palestinians not Arabs against Jews - are not a fair proportion of Israeli Jews themselves Arabs? Regards John H. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
irwin j mansdorf, psychologist raanana israel and new york
Send response to journal:
|
I am pleased to correct the misconceptions that John P. Heptonstall and perhaps many others have regarding the conflict. Prior to 1948, when the State of Israel was created, there was no distinct "Palestinian" Arab identity or self-described Palestinian people. The conflict involved an invasion of Israel not by Palestinians, but by a combined Arab army from, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, TransJordan and Lebanon. The Arab world continued to object to Israel's right to exist, launching wars by Egypt, Syria and Jordan, aided by troops from other Arab countries, in 1956, 1967 and 1973. Israel was also attacked by Iraq during the Gulf War in 1991, despite never having occupied any Iraqi territory or having any dispute with the Iraqi people. Despite peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, a state of war still exists with Syria and no diplomatic relations exist with(and no Jews allowed to visit) Saudi Arabia. Most countries in the Arab world, despite having no territorial contiguity or dispute with Israel, also maintain hostile relations. Furthermore, over 750,000 Jews from Arab countries that are refugees from the 1948 conflict have settled in Israel. While 20% of Israel's citizens are indeed Arabs, few Jews are left anywhere in the Arab world. The conflict has indeed evolved into one that focuses on Israelis and Palestinian Arabs, but it is only an evolution of a broader conflict that began long before the creation of the State of Israel or any "occupation" of Arab land by Israel. A cursory look into the press or media of countries such as Saudi Arabia or Egypt will find messages of gross anti-Semitism alongside anti-Israeli messages. Not only are Israelis targeted by Arab and Muslim extremists, but so are Jews in general, witness the bombing of synagogues in Istanbul and of Jewish community centers in Argentina by groups linked to Arab (not necessarily Palestinian) terror organizations. As to the second comment, no, Israeli Jews are not Arabs, although, as noted earlier, many Israeli Jews are refugees from Arab countries. I trust this clarification helps. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P. Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre. Practitioner of TCM -acu LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir I thank Irwin Mansdorf for his account but remain confused so would ask, if no Israeli Jews are Arabs, and Jewish is a religious title, what is the origin of non-Arab Jews as I understood there to be Arab and non- Arab Jews, all of whom are Semites? Kind regards John H. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
irwin j mansdorf, psychologist raanana, israel
Send response to journal:
|
I would be pleased to clarify John P. Heptonstall's confusion. "Arab" is a racial or ethnic designation. For the most part, Arabs are either Muslim or Christian. Any Arab that is "Jewish" is one that underwent formal religious conversion. If such people exist, they are few in number. "Jew" is basically a religious affiliation, although there are national and racial aspects as well. Jews have origins in many countries, but are basically divided into those that have modern (post-diaspora)roots in the West (commonly known as "Ashkenazic") and those whose roots are in the Middle East (commonly known as "Sephardic"). The latter were quite common in Arab countries till the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 and shared aspects of Arab culture (language, dress, liturgical style)but were never considered "Arab" by their hosts and certainly did not define or identify themselves as "Arab". While Jews are "semites" (i.e., speak a semitic language and descended from Noah's son, Shem), so are Arabs, as were Babylonians, Aramaeans, and some others. I trust this helps. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P. Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre. Practitioner of TCM -acu LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir I am most grateful for Irwin Mansdorf's explanation - it is along the lines of my own understanding of the situation but still not completely clear - Arab being racial or ethnic, whilst Jew is religious but also has national and racial attribues; I had thought the use of the religious title "Jew", to describe national and racial type, was due to common inaccuracy of reporting. Irwin says, "Jews have origins in many countries...are basically "Ashkenazic" and "Sephardic". The latter were quite common in Arab countries till the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 and shared aspects of Arab culture (language, dress, liturgical style) but were never considered "Arab" by their hosts and certainly did not define or identify themselves as "Arab"". This begs the question therefore as to what is/are the racial origins of Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jewish peoples? Were those with "roots in the middle East" Arabs who preferred to identify themselves by religion; is that where some confusion lay? Perhaps clarification might help explain what I thought to be a rather strange study I came across conducted by Israeli scientists as I was researching the vaccination debate (1). Israeli scientists at Ben-Gurion University reported having compared vaccination, with MMR vaccine, of 12 months old Bedouin children with that of 12 months old Jewish children. I wondered how scientists could compare vaccine effects in young children between what appears to be a racial type and a religious type. Kind regards John H. 1. "Differential immune responses to primary MMR vaccination in Israeli children", Rager-Zisman B et al, Clin Diagn Lab Immunol, 2004 Sep; 11(5):913-8 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Irwin J Mansdorf, psychologist raanana, israel
Send response to journal:
|
John H is indeed touching upon a relevant poiint--and I believe he is correct in noting that reporting "Jew" as a national description may be confusing. Since Judaism is also a religion, there are Jews who are British, American, French and Israeli. Similarly, while "Arab" is an ethnic description, there are many Muslims (the predominant Arab religion)who are not Arab. Not all Jews are Israelis and not all Israelis are Jews, and not all Arabs are Muslim and not all Muslims are Arabs. As to the racial origins of Ashkenazic vs, Sephardic Jews, this FAQ explains much of the background (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/07-Jews-As- Nation/section-2.html). As far as "roots", it is fair to say that all Jews originate from the area that is today Israel, although there has been mixing with other races and groups over time. In reference to the Ben Gurion University study, while I have not seen it, I would say that making a distinction between Bedouin Arabs and Jews without noting which particular sub-culture the Jewish group consisted of may raise scientific questions if race or ethnicity was being compared. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P. Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre. Practitioner of TCM -acu LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir Irwin Mansdorf's response makes sense but raises more questions; I am still confused as to why there are, as he said earlier, in Israel no Arabs who are Jews if Israel is to some seen as the 'promised land' of Jewish peoples; from his description of Sephardic Jews one would expect them to have Arab origin (are there also Ashkenazic Jews who are Arab in origin?) and as Semites orginated from Shem, son of Noah, thereafter becoming Babylonians, Assyrians etc. and some of those, who spoke Hebrew and Arabic, became Jews by following Judaism would not all Semites by race be of Arab racial origin, hence all original Jews be Arabs? Yet do all Arabs who are Jews live outside Israel? Obviously my original point about Irwin's reference to Arabs v Jews rather than Israelis v Palestinians is at the heart of this. How can Jews (a religious title with some consequence on the peoples who are at its original heart who were Arabs and who are inscribed through that religion with their maker) and Arabs (some of whom are Jews) be said to be in conflict? Is Irwin saying that all Jews in Israel who are not Arabs are at conflict with all Arab non-Jews outside Israel? If all Jews in Israel are not Arabs therefore do not originate from Arab lands, how can Israel be the 'promised land', with all that entails in terms of its centres of historical import, for peoples whose roots are not of that land and what impact does this have on the reasons both sides conflict? The Northern Ireland conflict is often compared to the Israel- Palestine situation but, depending on the true situation above, they appear to differ as Northern and Southern Irish have the same racial origin, and differ only by chosen religion. Unfortunately I only saw the abstract of the Ben Gurion study but there was no mention of sub-culture within the children described as Jewish - I agree with Irwin that scientific questions perhaps ought to be raised about that study and wonder if anyone has any information that will clarify matters? Regards John H. Regards John Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
irwin j mansdorf, psychologist raanana, israel
Send response to journal:
|
John H is a bit mistaken. Arabs are a racial group separate and distinct from Jews that never practiced the religion of Judaism. Sephardic Jews are Jews who lived in Arab societies, but were not Arabs. As to the "promised land", this has biblical roots which can be researched best with a minister or religious scholar. While Judaism is a religion, it never was the religion of the Arab peoples, hence, the reason that there are no Arab "Jews". There are also racial aspects to Judaism, as the people who descend from Jacob, the grandson of Abraham and son of Isaac. The relationship between Judaism as a religion, race and/or national entity has been discussed at length by many others and remains an interesting subject which I am sure John H can research further should he have the interest. all the best- ijm Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of the Morley Acupuncture Clinic Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir I am most grateful for Irwin's patient explanations and clarifications of the situation and must say I have been stimulated to read more - this is certainly a very complex subject. I am still bemused by Irwin's position that there are no, and there never were any, Arab Jews - presumably therefore Noah and son Shem, who 'begat' those who became Jews, were not Arabs? Kind regards John H. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
irwin j mansdorf, psychologist raanana israel
Send response to journal:
|
No, they were indeed NOT Arabs. all the best- ijm Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P. Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre. Practitioner of TCM -acu Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir Irwin says that Noah and Shem were not Arabs. Perhaps I have a typically, as I know many westerners hold this view, naive concept of what constitutes an Arab; that may be at the heart of my misunderstanding of Irwin's original 'Arab v Jew' statement. My understanding of an Arab is of a person born in 'Arabia' - including all lands modern encompassed by countries such as eg Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran etc. or ancient such as eg. Sumer, Mesopotamia, Assyria, Canaan etc. Noah lived, so presumably was born, by the Euphrates at a place called Shuruppak - where he was told to build the ark. His son Shem was probably born at Shuruppak in the area that is probably now Iraq so would that not make them Arabs - Sumerian (Sumer also being the area where Abraham is said to have been born) 'Arabs'? Perhaps Irwin could define Arab if it does not relate to persons born in 'Arabia' as I, like many other westerners, thought such that Arabs would then have been the original Jews born of patriarch Shem. One therefore thought that Arabs would still be prominent as Jews in addition to partaking of other faiths such as Islam and Christianity; and despite the diaspora which complicated the original genetics over many generations. I think a typical western concept of Israeli v Palestinian problems is of Israeli 'Arab' Jews v Palestinian 'Arab' Christians; and that the latter had their lands (their birthright as Palestinians/Canaanites)taken by force through imposed international agreement for the developing state of Israel. People obviously found sympathy with that, due to the holocaust and the perceived historical importance for Canaan/Palestine (now part Israel) for Jewish peoples. So one did not think of the situation, as Irwin described it, as Arabs v Jews as it might suggest that non-Arabs who are Jews, possibly without birthright to 'Arabian' lands such as Canaan/Palestine, are claiming settlement based on Jewry as opposed to birthright. I am sure one would similarly question non-British peoples claiming settlement in any part of Britain by virtue of religion only. Obviously if one tries to combine political and social strategy with religion, the latter being largely an unknowable quantity witness age old arguments amongst the brightest and best theological minds, one complicates matters enormously. Nor must one forget the imperlialistic role Britain and others played in this. Is it any wonder westerners are naive when it comes to such complexity? I am still not convinced it is appropriate to say Arab v Jew rather than Israeli v Palestinian. I hope all involved find the peace for which all their religions cry out. Regards John H. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter Morrell, Hon Research Associate, History of Medicine Staffordshire University, UK
Send response to journal:
|
When John Heptonstall says "I hope all involved find the peace for which all their religions cry out," then maybe he should wake up to the fact that HOPE alone will never and has never solved problems of this type. Dialogue is what solves this type of problem and it is dialogue alone they need to engage in. As the recent Derek Summerfield BMJ article and its myriad responses clearly revealed, dialogue is the one thing that is not taking place. You don't need a 'road map' or Colin Powell, you just need a willingness for dialogue and a hunger for peace, rather than bombs, mortars, rockets, militia, suicide bombers and a massive wall that stops all human traffic. You can hope whatever you like until the cows come home, but nothing will come of it until there is a will for peace and dialogue. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
irwin j mansdorf, psychologist raanana, israel
Send response to journal:
|
As to John's comments, this is certainly not the place to review history, but he would do well to understand that even the Arabs do not subscribe to his definition of what an "Arab" is. As to birthright vs. religion and "rights" to the land, he also makes a critical mistake. Lands were not taken, lands were divided, so that both competing claims could be honored. Jews (and subsequently Israel) accepted this proposition (as exemplified in UN resolution 181). The Arab states did not. Dialogue is something that Israel has sought for years, and when it found partners such as King Hussein and Anwar Sadat, peace was reached. On the other hand, the Palestine Liberation Organization's charter clearly stated that the state of Israel has no right to exist. Difficult to dialogue when only one side wants to talk and the other sends suicide terrorists to kill. By the way, the separation barrier is indeed a barrier or fence, and the "wall" refered to constitutes a small percentage of the route where gunfire would endanger civilians. There was no barrier before terror and if there was no terror, it would never have been constructed. Important fact to keep in mind as we continue to seek dialogue, although the latest Palestinian leader (Abbas) being carried on the shoulders of the very terrorists he supposedly is against leaves room for considerable cynicism and is quite disconcerting. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P. Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre. TCM Practitioner LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir I would be interested in Irwin's definition of Arab as that is at the heart of my original point. I suspect that modern and historic fact/fiction reflects heavily on the problems Israel and Palestine suffer. I am sure both sides believe their actions are justified to some extent by ancient and modern fact/fiction as each sees it. Irwin seems to ignore ancient history, despite evidence that Israel's position is often defended through birthright/religious claims to that land as is the Palestinian position. He speaks only of the modern historical fact that land was distributed by our imperialist forefathers - who had no birthright to that land - from those who seem to have belonged there and who are Arabs. It is not the only tragedy caused by imperialism, and current evidence is that it may not be the last. If only modern fact were relevant Israel exists as it ought as long as it respects lands granted by the imperialistic power; Palestine exists as it should in lands also granted through imperialism. Both sides would need to respect an imperialistic decision for that to work - it was not a decision made by those with birthright to those lands so I can understand how difficult is acceptance of such a decision witness Argentina and The Falklands, China and Hong Kong, Spain and Gibralta. If ancient fact remains sacred to either side I doubt the problems will be resolved by modern rights to act, hence my difficulty with the concept Arab v Jew rather than Israel v Palestine. If a people who are not Arabs, and who may have no birthright to lands within 'Arabia', expect to retain ownership granted through imperialism, and those with arguable historic birthright to that land are made to share it, how can a solution ever occur without the latter forfeiting to Israel what is believed to be their birthright? Zecharia Sitchin, expert in Sumerian script tranlation, suggests that the Canaanites hosted Jews (Sumerians - including Abraham) for their great wisdom and powers for negotiation and justice as they arrived in Canaan sent by God, they had not been granted rights to Canaan by God but were sent there to assist the Canaanites through their attributes. One can see how historical fact/fiction, as well as modern, can colour a belief in rights to land; couple that with an 'imperialistic decree' which is unacceptable to either side and there cannot be peace. If the Palestinians (as did the Canaanites) could accept and engage with the Israelis for the attributes they bring to Canaan - they created a green and pleasant land - and the Israelis could respect the birthright of the Palestinians to the land they now occupy, perhaps peace might begin to develop. Both peoples have shown tremendous resilience under enormous pressures, despite the rights and wrongs of both sides; the Israelis fight for land they believe is theirs but might do well to respect historical rights and privileges, and the Palestinians endure inhuman conditions and human suffering imposed on them by Israelis to find themselves locked in the interminable battle; if all that could be resolved for the children of both sides -a move to re-enact the historical conjoining of two peoples of proven resilience might ignite a period of peace and prosperity in the Middle East that would impact on all others. I hope agreement can be reached that ends the terror imposed by both Israelis and Palestinians; and a successful re-enactment of history brings peace for all. Regards John H. Competing interests: None declared |
|||