Moshe Sharon Explains Middle Eastern Realities

Moshe Sharon Explains Middle Eastern Realities

Moshe Sharon, professor of early Islamic history at Hebrew University, presented an analysis of some key Middle East issues to the annual conference at the Counter-Terrorism Institute in Herzliya yesterday. According to news reports, he focused on three main topics, the nature of Islam, the Iranian drive for nuclear weapons, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. I (who also cut his teeth on early Islamic history) read his analysis with great interest because it so closely parallels what I think, though with a couple of major differences.

The nature of Islam: It is a mistake to differentiate between radical and peaceful Islam. After scornfully dismissing the understanding of Islam by Western politicians, he summarized the spirit of the three main monotheisms as follows:

Judaism speaks about national salvation - namely, that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God.
Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sins.
Islam speaks about ruling the world, as summarized in a phrase: "Allah sent Muhammad with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions." It is not that the whole world will become Muslim instantly, but that it will eventually be subdued under the rule of Muslims. "Islam is a messianic religion… from the very beginning, it talked about the end of the world." In Islam, "Allah is the king of the end of days."
The Iranian drive for nuclear weapons: This goal, Sharon goes on, motivates the regime in Tehran. "This is why [Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad seeks nuclear weapons." He concludes that a deep belief in the mahdi, a messiah, drives the Iranian nuclear project.

They truly believe that the Shiite messiah, the Twelfth Imam (also known as the mahdi), is here, and that he will reveal himself… What moves the Iranian government and leadership today is first and foremost the wish to bring about the Twelfth Imam. … How will they bring him? Through an apocalypse. He needs a war. He cannot come into this world without an Armageddon. He wants an Armageddon. The earlier we understand this the better. Ahmadinejad wants nuclear weapons for this.

Sharon concludes: "This is a time of messianic expectation."

Israel is a side issue for the Iranian leadership, who use it primarily as a means to win support from other Muslims and eventually to dominate them. "But they cannot bluff the Saudis, the Wahhabis… the Shiites are hated by the Sunnis. The Saudis are far more apprehensive of nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran than Israel."

The Arab-Israeli conflict: "The root of the problem between us [Israelis] and the Arab world is Islam. Islam is not only a religion. It is a culture, politics… a state, Islam is everything. It has been like this, and it will be like this for the foreseeable future," From the Muslim perspective,

Islamic territory was taken away from Islam by Jews. You know by now that this can never be accepted, not even one meter. So everyone who thinks Tel Aviv is safe is making a grave mistake. Territory which at one time was dominated by Islamic rule, now has become non-Muslim. Non-Muslims are independent of Islamic rule and Jews have created their own independent state. It is anathema. Worse, Israel, a non-Muslim state, is ruling over Muslims. It is unthinkable that non-Muslims should rule over Muslims.


Moshe Sharon


Sharon then waved away the peace treaties and other documents Israel had signed with Arab leaders as "pieces of paper, parts of tactics and strategies… with no meaning." Muslims see Israel's establishment as a "reversal of history" and are therefore unable to accept peaceful relations with it. He concluded: "There is no possibility of peace between Israel and the Palestinians whatsoever – for ever."

Comments: (1) Hats off to Moshe Sharon for presenting so clear an interpretation.

(2) My argument with him concerns his extrapolating from the past and implicitly assuming that because something has not happened it will not. On the Islam topic, he is right that there has been no "peaceful Islam," but that does not preclude its coming into existence in the future. On the Arab-Israeli conflict, one cannot say with such certainty that Muslims will never accept Israel, for things change over time. In the first place, there was increasing Muslim acceptance (however grudging) of Israel during the period 1948-93; second, there are plenty of instances where Muslims lost territories and (again, grudgingly) came to terms with these realities. How many suicide bombers or battles of reconquest have there been in Sicily since 1091, in Spain since 1492, in Greece since 1821, or in India since 1867? Things change over time, never say never. (September 15, 2006)

Permalink | Reader Comments


-------------------------------------------------------------​-------------------

Egypt's Democratic Movement vs. Israel

I endorse democratization as a goal of U.S. policy in the Middle East, but urge that it be done modestly, slowly, and cautiously. This approach sets me apart from many of my political friends and allies, who are nearly all enthusiastic about "democracy now" for the region. (For one example of my seeing things differently, see the debate at "Democracy Is about More Than Elections"; for another, see "We Free Them or They Destroy Us.")

News today from Cairo vindicates my worries about proceeding too fast. In "Egyptian Activists Turn against Israel," Hamza Hendawi of The Associated Press notes how Egypt's major democracy movement, Kifaya,

has switched causes and is now focused on demanding an end to the country's peace treaty with Israel. … The Kifaya movement has launched a campaign to collect 1 million signatures on a petition calling for the annulment of Egypt's U.S.-sponsored 1979 peace treaty with Israel. The move is mainly symbolic, but it highlights the extent of resentment felt by Egyptians toward Israel – and by association, the United States, its main backer. "The Lebanon war is responsible," said George Ishaq, Kifaya spokesman and founding member. "The petition is a reaction in part to the (Egyptian) regime's feeble diplomatic handling of the war." He said 100,000 signatures have been collected so far. …

The anti-Israel campaign is a major shift for Kifaya, whose name is Arabic for "Enough" – as in enough of the 25-year rule of President Hosni Mubarak. The movement, made up of politicians, intellectuals and rights activists, burst onto Egypt's political scene two years ago, holding noisy demonstrations aimed at stopping Mubarak from seeking a fifth 6-year term in office or allowing his son, Gamal, to succeed him.

At least for a time, Kifaya's actions captured Washington's attention as a movement with the potential to peacefully bring reform. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Kifaya and other reform activists during a visit to Cairo last year. The movement succeeded in breaking down deeply ingrained political taboos, particularly by calling openly for Mubarak to step down. Its colorful street protests stirred up Egypt's stagnant politics and made democratic reform a top issue.

Still, Kifaya failed in its immediate political goals – the 78-year-old Mubarak was re-elected a year ago. Many believe his son is still on course to succeed him. Many Egyptians strongly oppose an accession to power by Gamal Mubarak, seeing it as a mere continuation of his father's rule. Now Kifaya is more concerned with Israel. On its Web site, dozens of postings expound on the pros and cons of abolishing Egypt's peace treaty. Some wrote that peace with Israel was "an illusion" and a "danger to Egyptian national security." Another said it was time for Egyptians to "struggle" against Israel.

Comments: (1) That the dictator Mubarak is a more reliable ally vis-à-vis Israel than his democratic opposition fits into a decades-long pattern of Arab politics.

(2) Kifaya, being a popular movement, cannot ignore the overwhelmingly anti-Zionist sentiments of its constituency, providing yet another reason why democracy in Egypt, as elsewhere in the region, needs to proceed modestly, slowly, and cautiously. (September 14, 2006)