Ted Belman
Steven E. Rothke, Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, USA, posits in his paper, The Psychological Origin of the 1300-Year-Old Arab-Israeli War, that the Arab Israel conflict is fundamentally a religious conflict with a significant psychological component.
Many of us have long concluded the same thing. Nevertheless his paper expands our understanding and introduces the psychological component
-
Abstract
This psycho-historical analysis advances the hypothesis that the long-standing hostilities between Israel and her Arab neighbors is fundamentally a religious conflict with a significant psychological component. The origins of the war and standoff between the parties are traced back to the time of the founding of Islam and the encounter between Muhammad and the Jews of what is now Saudi Arabia. When the Jews rejected Muhammad as the Apostle of God, he experienced a severe psychological wound leading to a series of actions that would now be referred to as acts of narcissistic rage.
This rage was transcribed into the Qur’an and has become an integral part of Islamic-Jewish relations since that time. Key historical and psychological contexts are provided and serve as the basis for recommended next steps to be taken to promote the peace process, including roles for political and consulting psychologists.
He concludes with the implications for the Peace Process
-
The chronic grudge and need for vengeance felt by many modern day followers of Muhammad against the Jews will only begin to resolve with a more balanced teaching of the Qur’an (i.e., that jihad refers to personal struggle and submission to God rather than armed struggle and forced conversions) and highlighting of the fact that Jews and Muslims have much in common in terms of biblical heritage, religious practice, and ethical values. The moderate voices of the Islamic faith must reassert control over the education of its followers and quell the more radical elements among them who feel compelled to rail against the West, and the Jews in particular, in protest of the fall of the Islamic empire over the last 200 years and of the survival of the original monotheistic faith that rejected their Apostle.
Don’t we know it. But none of us believes that this is about to happen. In fact the current interpretation of the Koran has been fixed for 700 years and is incapable of change. The Islamists are not the radicals. They are merely following what the religion prescribes. Its the moderates who are the radicals and they are not prepared to stick their heads up out of the foxhole, much less to create a revolution in the religion.
The notion that jihad refers to personal struggle and not armed struggle is a notion that has been rejected for the same 700 years by the doctrine of “abrogation”. While personal struggle is also required, armed struggle is demanded of those capable of it.
“Rabbi Yehuda the Nasi (head of the Sanhedrin and Jewish political leader of his era) was a good friend of Antoninus, the Roman governor.”
Only they didn’t eat together, and definitely not in Antoninus’ home.
This is the perplexing conundrum facing our times. I think that Israel (and especially the Israeli left who often dominate the debate if not the government) have made the fundamental error of contextualizing the issue as one between Israeli and Palestinian rather than between Western and Islamic value systems. I think that Bibi tried to address that in his UN talk pointing out that a nuclear Iran is not simply an Israeli problem. Even the damned Nazis at some level knew that their racist genocidal policy was wrong and would be perceived as such by the “civilized” world. Thus they hid their ultimate goal and built most of their extermination camps away from large German population centers. Not only do the Islamoimperialists (I think that word fits better with the reality than Islamofascist)consider genocide of others as a meritorious task, they believe (and with apparently good empirical evidence) that much of the current “civilized world” is willing to go along with it. That farce of an organization called the UN provides a forum for an obviously genocidal religious fanatic to denigrate a very accomplished if “population-challenged” people dwelling in their ancestral homeland. The majority of UN member countries did not berate him for shamelessly violating the very essence for the UN’s existence (ending wars and genocide), but for the better part of 50 years have hypocritically condemned Israel for imaginary crimes and defending itself against aggression while simultaneously not only condoning the worst abuses against human right and elevating its perpetrators to seats on UN Human Rights commissions ad nauseum. As a Canadian, I am exceedingly proud of our present government that has made a statement by NOT addressing the UN at the height of its hypocrisy and ineffectuality. Consequently, I do not think that mainstream Western leadership a) understand the extent of the problems it faces with Islamoimperialism, b) the philosophical incompatibility between Islamic theocratic values and practices and left-wing approaches to the state and life in general, and consequently, c) mistakenly believes that “community organizer methods” will work with leaders on the other side who believe in deception as a principle of effective negotiations (sanctioned by Mohammed; see Hudna.) The only possible approach to finding a solution is to organize the rest of the non-Islamoimperialist world (that would be open to anti-Islamoimparialist Muslims (i.e., those be willing to engage such as Tarek Fatah etc.) to constantly, coherently and consistently challenge the irrational nature of Islamoimperialism, organize politically and internationally, and NOT concede anything politically to Islamoimperialists from Shomron to Shanghai. The Chinese, Indians, Russians, Sub-Sahara Africans, all have as much to fear from Islamoimperialism as Westerners because their value systems are similarly at odds with Sharia. The Islamoimperialists are trying to “pick off one enemy at a time” which is a clever strategy but one that we can actively counter by organizing internationally.
Just as an aside to Yamit 82: Judaism does NOT forbid good and meaningful friendships with non-Jews. Rabbi Yehuda the Nasi (head of the Sanhedrin and Jewish political leader of his era) was a good friend of Antoninus, the Roman governor. We are enjoined not to intermarry which would lead to the disappearance of Judaism and Jews as a distinct people. Consequently some limits were placed on behaviours leading to intimacy.
@ Michael Devolin:
In reply to my posting, you say:
I agree with you: the apathy of the West is pathetic. But if the Western leaders do not protect their own societies from the invading Islamic tide and the anti-democratic Sha’ria law that inevitably follows, there is nothing anyone else could do.
In that regard, the French Minister of the Interior, Emmanuel Valls, is fully aware of the problem, as shown in this article (it is in French, but Google may provide a reasonable instant translation):
“When the Jews rejected Muhammad as the Apostle of God, he experienced a severe psychological wound leading to a series of actions that would now be referred to as acts of narcissistic rage.”
Ain’t that the truth. “The fool rages and is confident.”
“…the leaders of Western countries, who really feel that Islam presents a clear and present danger, will come up with the right legislation”
I will be happy only when I see the first indications of this “right legislation.” At the moment all I see is “ongoing silence, cajoling or appeasement.”
Also, my concern is that “how Islam is being practiced in Muslim countries” will eventually be how it is practiced here, in North America. Europe is toast. Muslim culture can be summated as an obsession with religious predominance. This is the cumulative effect Islam drives for, and anti-Jewish hatred is its primary engine of war. Suicide bombings are coming to a neighborhood near you. It is only a matter of time.
@ yamit82:
I am not primarily concerned about how Islam is being practiced in Muslim countries. The urgent problem at hand is Islam in non-Muslim countires.
Again, read my first posting and you will find the answers to your four questions: in short, the leaders of Western countries, who really feel that Islam presents a clear and present danger, will come up with the right legislation. The alternative is the ongoing silence, cajoling or appeasement which have produced nothing concrete to date.
Not One Inch,Your point is another good reason why there should not be a Muslim state in the Holy Land. These Muslims are not civilized enough to be part of the community of the other two Abrahamic traditions. And after 64 years of being supported by the West they no clue as to what it takes to integrate in Our Holy City. Why are we putting up with them and their violence?
That violence is also in almost every Muslim country in the Middle East. In the Great Iraq, the cradle of civilization, today Shiites and Sunnis are bitterly fighting instead of joining forces to bring back one of the greatest places that has ever existed. The same for Egypt. Present day Islamists are not even worth a toe nail of their predecessors.
Present day Islam is the the doom of these people.
The peace process says land for peace. In other words, if no land than war. This is typical Muslim tactics. If there is any reform in Islam then they should accept the one G-d of Israel. Let the Muslims compromise land that was stolen from the Jews in 1922 across the Jordan, if they compromise, then they will have peace. No less, otherwise no peace. I tired of being the worlds sacrificial lamb for there oil interest.
“Islam must never be acceptable, or accepted legally in any Western democracy and nation. It must be outlawed and banned as well as it’s adherents.”
I agree totally. Otherwise the entire Western world will be transmogrified by Islam and its adherents into a Caliphate. It’s actually happening right now.
Palazzi?? Are you kidding me? That guy is a farce and a sophist and an apologist for Islam. He’s tried to propose that Muslims can be practicing Noachides! How can Muslims be practicing Noachides when Islam is an anti-Jewish ideology?
Yes, Yamit, I know Judaism forbids friendships with other religions, but Judaism is the only true Torah/instruction from G-D (there has to be one, as Pascal pointed out, even though he picked the wrong one). I accept that prohibition from Judaism, but from any other religion such prohibition has no weight.
Also, Jews are not beheading non-Jews on video simply because they’re non-Jews. Muslims are. And what makes it worse for Muslims is that their faith is simply an ersatz ideology and an imitation of Judaism. Only the Jews are “a light unto the nations.”
@ Salomon Benzimra:
If Muslims were to alter their beliefs so as to be acceptable to Western culture and norms it would cease to be Islam and have become whatever it’s called something other than Islam. Islam has not changed in over 1400 years and there is no reason to believe it will by it’s own internal resources ever change.
Islam must never be acceptable, or accepted legally in any Western democracy and nation. It must be outlawed and banned as well as it’s adherents.
No sane person or nation welcomes an incurable plague within it’s gates or borders hoping to find a cure down the road.
@ Slomon Benzimra:
I know of Imam Palazzi of Rome and have read some of his articles.
I also know that he is considered an apostate by the vast majority of Muslims that know about him and he is virtually a lone voice in the Muslim wind.
If he were living in a Muslim country his life would probably have been forfeited long ago.
If he rejects 90% of the Koran what kind of Muslim is he? In a Muslims eye that is.
That said, I think It’s intellectually disingenuous to to hold up an anomaly as support for your POV. There are some 1.3-5 billion Muslims in the world and even if there are a handful who appear to go against the Muslim stream they are so few as to not be worthy of using them in any meaningful discussion re: Islam.
@ Salomon Benzimra:
Who is to issue such an ultimatum?
What form of testing and observation would be used for acceptance or rejection of such an ultimatum?
Who gets to determine the final verdict?
Who will be empowered to enforce such an ultimatum and what would be the sanctions if the results are determined to be negative?
Are Obama’s Misconceptions of Muhammadan Islam Naivety or deliberate Deceptions?
@ J.S.:
Pipes, to the best of my recollections not a Muslim scholar or historian.
@ Ted Belman:
Ted, I am afraid you and others who commented on my post didn’t read (or understand) what I meant. Please read it again and realize that, rather than complain in vain and in total passivity, it is time to throw an ultimatum to Muslims and observe their response
Judea or Palestine? Part 227 A (A&B)
Judea or Palestine? Part 227 B
@ Salomon Benzimra:
I am surprised you would make such a suggestion. You know its like saying that we should work harder on the peace process. It ain’t going to happen and you know it.
@ yamit82:
Just a hint, Yamit, FYI: Imam Palazzi of Rome
@ Laura:
Nope!
Can Muslims be Loyal Citizens? Part 232
@ Salomon Benzimra:
Radical Islam Deception Part 235
@ Canadian Otter:
You get it I get it and a few (very few) get it mostly because they prefer not to know.
Ted should post this and some of his other tapes. He is an Iraqi Arab living today in England.
Islam & Democracy Part 243
More links re: Islam
IQ al Rassooli – on YouTube
@ catarin:
Islam I think has won historically, militarily more than it’s lost but they do have a plan B, when they are militarily weak, and that is the womb. They make lots of little Muslims and today Islam is the worlds fastest growing religion.
@ Michael Devolin</b
So does Judaism.
@ Salomon Benzimra:
I don’t know how to define a moderate Arab Muslim, no less Iman. The concept of moderate in Islam is not only a relative term it’s an oxymoron.
A moderate Arab or Muslim advocates killing non-believers, especially Jews, moderately?
I believe Prof. Rothke’s recommendations should not be dismissed out of hand. But for them to have any practical value, they should be accompanied by an ultimatum issued by the leaders of all non-Muslim countries where large Muslim minorities live, i.e. Europe, North America, Israel, etc.
These leaders should enjoin the more “moderate” imams in their communities to do precisely what Prof. Rothke suggests. If they succeed, after a reasonable time, fine. If they fail – or if they don’t even try – the whole Muslim community will be regarded as a fifth column endangering the state, and the already existing laws against sedition, fomenting trouble, etc. should be forcefully applied.
In other words, the Muslim leaders should be asked to choose between two clear options: making Islam a religion like others or keeping Islam as the violent, totalitarian ideology that it is today. And if Western leders cannot garner the fortitude to launch such an action, they will get what they deserve.
I thought that Mo (in the beginning) did everything possible to appeal to Jews, with the idea of having them convert. When Mo was rebuffed (and laughed at due to his ignorance), Mo went into a rage. Like Martin Luther…
Twelve years ago I read the Koran and while reading it has always been my suspicion that this guy Muhammad wanted to become a Jew. I think he desperately wanted to be associated with the “People of the Book”. What else was there? I never tried to compose an argument in support of this notion because it seemed nuts with what has since transpired. But it makes sense to me because it explains lots of things, like Obama opening his remarks in Cairo with the words: As-Salamu Alaykum, or, if you like, Shalom Aleichem.
Islam proper IS “extreme”. Anything less if apostasy, according to the Quran.
Islam has created “the terrible shape of the present Muslim people.” Muslims “suffer from extrangement from other religions” because they are forbidden friendships with “other” religious.
Don’t forget that extreme Islam has been defeated many times in the past. When it is, maybe the terrible shape of the present Muslim people, who suffer from estrangement from other religions, poverty, hopelessness and degradation will create the atmosphere for change to begin. The word, iftihad, is a concept already known in Islam from which change can be made. We can hope the Muslim people will demand this be done. After all, who wants to be crapped on all their lives?
Islam will not change–until it is destroyed!
I recall (Daniel Pipes source?) a Muslim scholar who wanted to reverse the “abrogation” of the verses. Hence the peaceful verses would prevail over the war-like verses. This he was arguing would bring Islam into the modern world. If I recall correctly, for this liberality, they murdered him.
Part 2 – There’s no true Islam without sharia. And an essential part of Islam is that non-believers must be subjugated or exterminated whenever and wherever Islam has the power to do so. Simple concept, really.
The window of opportunity for the West to save itself from Islam is closing rapidly and inexorably as Muslim immigration continues to rise, thereby increasing their political influence.
~~~~~~~~
Israeli authorities have been morphing Israel into a Dhimmi society – to the extent they can get away with. It’s their way of capitulating and appeasing a population hungry for Jewish blood that counts on an international fan club of billions to pounce on Israel at the slightest transgression. The idea of asserting Judaism in Israel is absolutely unthinkable to the ruling elite.
The Prof doesn’t get it, in spite of his many academic titles.
His kind of wishful thinking is NOT HARMLESS. It’s causing irreversible damage to the West, particularly in the area of immigration. In complete denial of reality, people like the professor and western governments hope that a personal acquaintance with democracy, education, tolerance, and peaceful conflict resolution will transform Muslims into guys and gals just like the rest of us. What usually happens is that even when immigrant Muslim parents are law abiding, subsequent generations don’t have the usual immigrant’s restraint, and they can get cockier, more demanding, and more radicalized.
Islam cannot be reformed for two main reasons: 1) The Koran is absolutely rigid against even the slightest change to dogma or practice. 2) Establishing Islam-Lite mosques, or Muslims speaking out against basic parts of their culture or against clerical dictates, would be regarded as a serious affront to TRUE ISLAM. And affronts to Islam are dealt with very harshly, as we all know.
Try telling that to western liberals such as that dumb broad Erin Burnett who interviewed Pam Geller.
Good luck with that. It simply isn’t going to happen.