Still deaf and dumb

Given the actual Islamic context of the “Palestinian-Israeli” conflict, which no one in a responsible position in the West ever mentions, the billions the West, led by the “conservative” Bush administration, continues to give to the Palestinians are in fact a jizya tax—protection money paid to Muslims in exchange for not killing the dhimmi Jews, as Diana West writes.

Indeed, so far are American conservatives from recognizing the Islamic reality of Islam that they continue to genuflect before Islam apologist Bernard Lewis, who recently said in a speech:

“The authoritarianism present in the Middle East region is not part of the Arab and Muslim traditions, but it has been imported from Europe.”

- end of initial entry -

Ploni Almoni writes:

You write:

Given the actual Islamic context of the “Palestinian-Israeli” conflict, which no one in a responsible position in the West ever mentions, the billions the West, led by the “conservative” Bush administration, continues to give to the Palestinians are in fact a jizya tax—protection money paid to Muslims in exchange for not killing the dhimmi Jews …

Your comment seems uncharacteristically sentimental. The West, including the U.S. government and especially including Europe, does not care if a few dozen Israeli Jews a year are killed in terrorist attacks. There’s even a name for them: “sacrifices for peace.” Western guilt aside, realistically the West is concerned that too much terrorism could lead to harsh Israeli reprisals which might shake up the whole region, hence the protection-racket aspect of foreign aid.

More to the point of your comment: Considering that this protection money has been paid to the Palestinians for decades, since back when Fatah was running the resistance as an explicitly secular struggle, the “Islamic context” seems accidental, not essential to the protection racket. That’s why using terms like jizya and dhimmi here might be a bit reductionist.

Also, as a matter of terminology, is the term jizya correctly used for tribute paid by agents who are not subjects of Muslim rule? Wikipedia describes jizya as a tax only, nothing about international tribute. As a test I Googled “Barbary pirates jizya,” but the only references to that tribute as jizya were polemical. Actually since you’re talking about third-party payments, I’d guess that just as a matter of terminology (setting aside my objection to your point), “ransom” would be more accurate than “tribute.”

I know all this is pedantic, but I think precision is especially important when talking about Muslims and Islam because of all the intentional obfuscation by politicians and media types. But if Muslims themselves have used jizya in this sense then I’d gratefully appreciate the correction.

No comment on your use of the word dhimmi, because I can pretty much guess where that would lead.

LA replies:

In the paragraph that Ploni quotes, I was summing up Diana West’s column, not writing my own ideas. Oddly, Ploni quotes the entire paragraph except for the last four words: “… as Diana West writes.”

In any case, doesn’t jizya refer, not just to tax paid by individuals living under Muslim rule, but to money paid by states to Muslim states to avoid being attacked? Even if jizya is not the correct word for this, the idea is still the same.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 21, 2007 12:01 PM | Send