Symbolic Truth Middle East Graphics site

The boundaries of the Biblical land of Israel in the map include the territories assigned to the 12 tribes of Israel and/or the near-maximum boundaries of the early Israelite kingdoms -- excluding states (such as Damascus, Geshur, Ammon, Moab, and Edom) which sometimes acknowledged some degree of Israelite suzerainty or overlordship, but were not integral or directly-administered parts of any Israelite kingdom (nor areas of heavy Israelite settlement during the United Monarchy period). If any one particular source had more influence than all others in determining the extent of the "pink" area on the map, it was probably the Administrative Districts of Solomon's Kingdom Map, map no. 113 on page 86 of the MacMillan Bible Atlas (3rd edition, 1993) by Yohanan Aharoni, Michael Avi-Yonah, Anson F. Rainey, and Ze'ev Safrai. Only those cities are shown on the map which were capital cities, or were important landmarks in demarcating ancient Israel or Judea.
(For a simpler and more neutral version of this map, see the separate page.)

Note: In the graphic below, the special Qur'anic orthography is largely translated into standard modern Arabic orthography, partly for clarity when a full array of diacritics is not used (but also because the font I use does not contain all the special Qur'anic symbols, and because I don't have enough experience with Qur'anic orthography to be able to detect any mistakes I might make). If this offends you, you can go to on-line Qur'an sites to see the original (and only slightly different) spelling.
Here are the Qur'an quotes in Arabic textual form (if you have a properly-configured internationalized browser): قال موسى (٢٠) يا قومِ ادخلوا الأرض المقدسة التي كتب الله لكم (٢١) وقلنا لبني إسرائيل اسكنوا الأرض (١٠٤)‏

"I don't remember George Washington and Paul Revere telling their sons to blow themselves up in order to kill British children." -- Her response to the special pleading of Arab leaders who claimed that Hamas and Hezbollah etc. were "patriots" who by definition couldn't be considered terrorists.
"There is no moral equivalency between suicide bombers and bulldozers, between killing innocent people and building houses". -- Speech of August 6, 1997.
"Certainly the Israelis could be faulted for the extremism of some, and more generally for their policy on settlements. But the core failure was the Palestinians' obsessive focus not on how much could be gained but on the relatively little they would be required to give up. They wouldn't yield a dime to make a dollar. If Arafat had chosen differently, Palestine would now be a member of the United Nations, its capital in East Jerusalem. Its people would be able to travel freely between the West Bank and Gaza. Its airport and seaport would be operating. Palestinian refugees would be receiving compensation and help in resettling. Instead the Palestinians have their legalisms, their misery, and their terror." --Madam Secretary

Arafat and the movement did not take advantage of opportunities -- ranging from the pre-Arafat 1947 partition plan through Oslo and other examples -- to achieve a state; gather in the exiles; and build a Palestinian identity, culture, economy, and polity. One principal underlying reason for the failure to change, and reap a large -- if not total -- reward and benefit in doing so, was a refusal to clearly and irreversibly accept a two-state solution. There is a strong unwillingness to close the door to a "second stage" in which the main goal would be Israel's elimination. And by failing to show an interest in anything but high politics and armed struggle, Arafat disdained the kind of economic, educational, institution-building, and other kinds of activities needed to achieve a state. Several other persisting problems were endemic in the movement. The implicit revolutionary doctrine developed by Arafat and Fatah blended Islam, Marxism-Leninism, Arab nationalism, and Third World radicalism.
 -- Their basic beliefs and analysis all argued that victory was certain and, consequently, any compromise short of wiping out Israel would be both treasonous and unnecessary. Therefore, it would be very hard to accept any other solution, or even have an open debate on goals, without the more moderate side being called traitors. Achieving a Palestinian state was, for all practical purposes, always subordinate to getting all of the land. If there was a contradiction between these two goals the harder line would always have the advantage.
 -- There was the absolute glorification of violence as simultaneously the movement's highest value and its foundation. As Article 9 of the PLO's Charter makes clear, "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine and is therefore a strategy and not tactic." Moreover, there were never any moral constraints placed on that tool. At most, the timing of a specific attack might be wrong or inconvenient. The Palestinians were guiltless victims entitled to use any means to redress their grievances. Since, in Arafat's words, Israel was "An embodiment of neo-Nazism... intellectual terrorism and racial exploitation" there need be no restraint on Palestinian tactics. But this was a dangerous concept: Violence justified as the highest value would become an end in itself, crowding out diplomacy and delegitimizing compromise. Moreover, this was a creed of violence without limit in which any act of terror and any murder could be justified as heroic and beyond criticism. The Palestinian public would not only accept such behavior but would cheer it, and flock to join those capable of such deeds of revenge.
 Arafat's refusal to articulate a positive goal -- and any competing value such as better lives for the people, an end to death or suffering, or the actual enjoyment of a peaceful national existence -- also made violence and permanent revolution ends in themselves that would ultimately block any other approach. According to this doctrine, the way to victory was not a pragmatic adjustment to reality but rather having a correct political line. You could get everything you want without compromise, and to demand all without making any concessions was simply a matter of justice. The true hero was not he who achieved material improvements and benefits for his people but the one who did not bend no matter what the cost. But if there is no "good society" to look forward to, how can the vision of material achievement based on compromise overcome endless battle for an unreachable objective of total victory no matter what the cost? How can humanitarian values or even tactical limits be introduced into the movement? The Palestinian strategy was based on the old mix of terror (to make Israel surrender) and pity (to gain international support and intervention).

"The Shiites who dominate the oil-rich eastern province... are encouraged by the march of the Shiites in the south of Iraq. Any change in the system would, they believe, re-establish their rightful control over the major oil fields. The Hijazis, who belong to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina... have also suffered second-class status and their religious sites have been demolished by the Wahhabis. Many Hijazis still regard the Hashemites as legitimate rulers of their region, 75 years after they were forced out by the Al Saud family."
-- International Herald Tribune January 8, 2004

"According to Sami Angawi (self-proclaimed Sufi leader of the Hijaz), Wahhabism -- imported from Najd, the central region of Saudi Arabia -- gradually had eroded the historic Hijazi urban culture of tolerance and diversity. His audience -- wearing modest but colorful traditional Hijazi dresses, instead of the all-enveloping black gown of the Najd -- have grown up with stories about Wahhabi massacres in the mountain resort of Taif near Jidda. Wahhabi domination had led to the destruction or neglect of almost all of the Islamic and pre-Islamic history of the Hijaz. `Most of the Islamic heritage in Hijaz has been destroyed by the Saudi government and their Wahhabi clan', said Ali al-Ahmed. [This refers to the wanton vandalism of the 1925 Wahhabi pillaging of Mecca, among other incidents...] Mr. Angawi's message was clear: The roots of global Islamist terrorism can be traced back to the fanatical puritanism of the Bedouin zealots known as the Wahhabis."
-- "Wahhabism splits Saudis" by John R. Bradley, The Washington Times Feb. 4th 2004.

"Saudi Arabia is the world's leading financier of religious bigotry, militant medievalism, sectarian violence and the subjugation of women. It is the Taliban with money." -- Paul Sheehan

"We can't get around the fact that the House of Saud underwrites the mosque schools that turn out the jihadists, just as it administers the charities that fund the jihadists. It channels the anger of the jihadists against the west to distract it from the rot in the House of Saud." -- Robert Baer, Sleeping with the Devil

You can also go to a separate page of quotes on Saudi Arabia ; this includes a quote revealing Gloria Steinem's apparent "neo-con" streak, as well as an animated graphic expressing the true meaning of the Saudi-Wahhabi alliance.

(Apologies to any who are offended by `Asir being lumped in with Hijaz, but distinguishing `Asir would complicate the map, and destroy the classical allusion!)

View the GIF or PDF versions of this graphic for a full key which explains the color-coded regions on the map.

風إسلام

Here's the Hamas Death-worship motto in textual form (if you have a properly-configured internationalized browser version): لا إله لهم إلا الموت، «حماس» رسول الموت

I don't regard Palestinian nationalism as being inherently or essentially phoney, but it's still a historical fact that the idea of a separate specifically-Palestinian Arab national self-identity (as opposed to pan-Islamic nationalism, pan-Arab nationalism, pan-Mashriq nationalism, Greater Syria nationalism, local district patriotism, etc.) didn't really start to command widespread mass support and allegiance until after 1964. If the Palestinians would frankly admit that their separatist national identity dates from the 1960's (along with the new nationalisms of many countries which achieved independence during that period), then I would have few problems with that -- but when self-appointed Palestinian spokesmen insist on telling lies about so-called "Historic Palestine", then that has the effect of alienating sympathies I might otherwise feel.

"The UN is rapidly becoming more of a force for harm than good. Still, if America pulled out, an unreformed UN steered by such luminaries as Kofi Annan and Mary Robinson would likely collapse under its own irrelevant ineptitude or be forced to reveal itself as a collection of quasi-Marxist and Islamist dictatorships with a few whey-faced Europeans strutting about."