This is not a book review of the work by Graham E. Fuller, published in 2012. Rather, it is a critique in the context of current affairs. At the outset, the content, while consisting of an amalgam of facts and fiction, fails miserably in its objective i.e. the defense of Islam.
While it is true that, in general, Jews fared better under Islam than Christianity, the relativity tends to blur Jewish suffering at the hands of Islam.
Fuller speaks of “a titanic ideological struggle that conveniently focuses on religion and seems to ignore myriad other factors”. How would he explain the eight year war between Iraq and Iran, a contest between the Sunni and Shiite brands of Islam? Invoking an old canard, he proclaims ,”carte blanche American support for Israel in the complex Palestinian problem” suggesting that this has its roots in “Western persecution and butchery of European Jews.”In other words, either by way of ignorance or simply engaging a faulty belief that Israel ‘s being is a consequence of the Holocaust. Not only that , “but coming at terrible expense to the Palestinians.” He adds”40 years on ongoing ‘occupation’ in Israel—-”
Yet another misinformed statement; “An early solution to the Palestinian problem must be found.” Surely, he must be aware of the generous offers made by Barak and Olmert. And what about Sharon’s disengagement from Gaza which involved a complete infrastructure, including whole towns, hospitals, businesses etc, only to be greeted with a war.
After the Six Day War, the US Joint Chief of Staff ‘s assessment was that “[without the territories. a] dwarfed Israel would then be an irresistible target for Arab adventurism and terrorism, and ultimately for an all-out military assault which could end Israel’s existence—“. This plus the acceptance of Israel’s recognition as a Jewish state are absolutes for a resolution.
Fuller explains his hypothesis by stating that the problem began with the immigration into “Palestinian lands” of European Jews. In fact, the Jewish immigration was mostly declared illegal while the British actively promoted Arab immigration. He speaks of the displacement of three quarters of a million Palestinians due to Israeli “operations of ethnic cleansing” making Palestinians having to pay for European sins. This assertion is a complete fabrication of a lie that pervades the distortion of the truth and finds it presence in the literature of ill disposed historians. It is easily disposed of by questioning the true origin of the so called Arab refugees.
Abba Eban, a liberal Israeli diplomat addressed the UN on November 17, 1958 in a famously recorded speech.. In an emphatic statement, Mr. Eban informed the assembly that the refugee problem was caused by a war of aggression launched by the Arab states against Israel in 1947 and 1948. He further stated that had there been no war with “its consequent harvest of bloodshed, misery, panic and flight , there would be no problem of Arab refugees.” He also discussed in detail the issue of Palestinian Arabs having to flee due to encouragement of the invading Arab nations. This allegation, Eban backed up with quotes from well informed delegates, including Arabs.
At this junction, reference to the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917 would seem to be in order. Of course, Fuller elects not to recall this international document nor the San Remo Conference, a conference of the Allies in WWI which succeeded it during April, 1920, nor the Palestine Mandate which was confirmed by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922. Key extracts follow, it being fully understood that the Mandate maintains permanency:
 Included in the preamble: “Whereas recognition has thereby given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country—-”
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestinian territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of Government of any foreign power.
The Administration of Palestine—-shall facilitate immigration and shall encourage—-close settlement by Jews by Jews on the land, including state lands and wastelands not required for public purposes.”
The British engaged in pragmatism by adding Article 25, thus denying Jews entry, let alone occupation of what became Transjordan, despite the use of the word “temporary’ in this amendment, an action legally questionable The ultimate result was legal right for the Jews to settle anywhere in western Palestine, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law. [July 24, 1922]
In response to Arabs having been treated unfairly, an outraged Lloyd George proclaimed:
“No race has done better out of fidelity with which the Allies redeemed their promises to the oppressed races than the Arabs. Owing to the tremendous sacrifices of the Allied Nations, and more particularly of Britain and her Empire, the Arabs have already won independence in Iraq, Arabia, Syria and Trans-Jordan, although most of the Arab races fought throughout the war for the Turkish oppressors—-[In particular] the Palestinian Arabs fought for Turkish rule.”
Any counter arguments which the Arabs had levied were countered by the British understanding that Arab presence in Palestine only numbered approximately 150 years and mostly had originated in neighboring countries. Further, there was a direct relation to growth due to Jewish industrial development. In the words of Winston Churchill upon awarding the concession to Pinchas Rutenburg to build the first electric power station in Palestine, “Left to themselves, the Arabs of Palestine would not in a thousand years have taken effective steps towards the irrigation and electrification of Palestine. They would have been quite content to dwell—-a handful of philosophic people—-in the wasted sun-scorched plains, letting the waters of Jordan continue to flow unbridled and unharnessed into the Dead Sea.”
Earlier, on December, 1917, shortly after the signing of the Balfour Declaration, Assistant Foreign Secretary Lord Robert Cecil had proclaimed his country’s policy as: “Our wish is that Arabian countries shall be for Arabs, Armenia for Armenians, Judea for the Jews.”
Beyond his criticism of the US, for whom he holds responsible for the present confrontation with the Muslim world, Graham Fuller cannot resist blaming Israel for Palestinian suffering. He makes an outright statement that Israel colonization efforts in “Palestinian territories” must terminate and be reversed.
What does Mr. Fuller mean by “times are perilous for the Muslim world——-but the causes—-are not about religion.” Why then after every terrorist attack do we hear the words, “Allahu akbar” after most terrorist attacks”? On the subject of terrorism, he suggests that no suitable definition of terrorism and presumably had never heard of Senator Henry Jackson:
“The thought that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter is unacceptable. Freedom fighters or revolutionaries do not blow up buses with non combatants, terrorists and murderers do. freedom fighters do not kidnap and slaughter students, terrorists and murderers do.”
One cannot find any reference to the peace Israel established with Egypt and Jordan by Israel in Fuller’s book. Nor, all other peace efforts by Israel commencing with UN Resolution 181 on partition , Barakand Olmert’s efforts, the latter including 93% of the West Bank. Nor does he cover how time and again the Arabs would not adhere to peace agreements, Oslo being a good example of this.
No Mr. Fuller, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not to “terrify and demoralize”, but to bring a conclusion to WW2 at the soonest possible time. As to kicking America out of Saudi Arabia, who built their oil refineries, if not the US and the UK? As in the case of Obama, he confuses Islam for Black Africans. How would ISIS fit into his allusions?
Regrettably, space does not permit a fuller exposure to the author’s failed justification of Islam.