(Jewish Policy Center) Dr. Harold Rhode - To understand any potential agreement between Israel and its neighbors, it is essential to understand how Islam understands it relationships with non-Muslims. Only then can we address the question of whether Muslims can ever accept a Jewish state on land they believe is theirs. Many years ago, I taught Middle East history at the University of Delaware. The classes included a significant number of Muslim students from Iran, Turkey, and the Arab lands. When we came to the French conquest of North Africa in the 19th century, I asked the students what they thought about the French imposing their culture and language on the locals. Both the American and Muslim students were outraged by French colonialism. I then referred to the Muslim conquest of these lands in the 7th century, asking whether what the Muslims conquerors had done was any different from what the French had done. The Americans quickly got the point. But the gut reaction of the Muslim students was to shout out that the Muslims brought Islam to the locals which improved/elevated their lives. No Muslim would publicly admit that what the Arab Muslims coming out of Arabia had done was imperialism. Better to be ruled by Muslim autocrats/tyrants than by non-Muslim infidels who had no right to rule over Muslims, no matter how much freedom or prosperity their governance might bring. In 1979, Anwar Sadat signed an agreement with Israel supposedly ending 30 years of conflict between overwhelmingly Muslim Egypt and Jewish Israel. Interestingly, the Arabic word most often used in the Egyptian press to describe the agreement was tafahhum - best translated as "mutual understanding," not a peace agreement. There is, in fact, no way in Arabic to express the Western concept of letting bygones be bygones. The writer served for 28 years as an advisor on the Islamic world in the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense.
2020-04-10 00:00:00Full ArticleBACK Visit the Daily Alert Archive