War and Peace

[Ephemerid]

Sean, I wanted to say in my previous post that you are a step away from nazism. But in fact you're already there. Your argument is the basic claim of inherent, genetic, racial supremacy. You've just laid out the foundation for the Nuremberg laws. Only you could think that this requires further debate.

He's still formulating that one... http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,5624.0.html

[Bunny]

After the Punic wars, to ensure that Carthage could not again threaten the security of Rome, they systematically destroyed the city; "So as not one stone was on another", ploughed the land with salt and moved what little was left of the population. This was all to do with power and nothing to do with religion or ethnicity.

Carthage brought it on itself for deciding to challenge Rome and loosing. The Jews did also bring it on themselves for wanting to lead a life outside of that which Rome prescribed......but no where have I suggested they ought just to have bowed down and sucked it up.

Jews could become Roman citizens with the privileges that entailed. During the time of Augustus one Jewish prince was brought up with the grandchildren of Augustus. He became King of Judea. The action against the Jews was designed to bring them into line, not exterminate them.

I am not suggesting it was appropriate or in any way good. But I do not think the reprisals were aimed at other than imposing their will; just as they did elsewhere.

Mike

It's funny, but Carthage contested Rome's naval power, interfered with trade routes, fomented unrest in the Iberian peninsula from their settlements, and invaded the Italian peninsula.  The Jews merely wished to remain unbothered in their homeland, and worship in the style of their ancestors.  They had no armies to invade or navy to battle the Roman ships.  They were isolationist, wishing only to be left alone by the Romans as Alexander had left them alone in his conquest of the world.  The great crime of the Jews against Roman power was fidelity to God, and desire for liberty and independence, and yet the punishment was disproportionately drastic.  Why would Rome so react except because of the religious aspect of the conflict?  Jews were considered atheists and impious because they refused to worship at the altars of Jupiter, and they constantly revolted whenever the Romans tried to establish altars or temples to the Roman Gods in Judea.  How can you define the conflict as anything but religious? Certainly Judea didn't have the wealth or might of Egypt or Carthage.  Certainly Judea was no threat to the existence of the Roman Empire. 

The fundamental nature of the Jewish-Roman conflict is religion.  To deny this is to fail to understand the forces that have driven the Jewish people over the centuries since God commanded Abraham to leave the land of his father and go to a new land that he promised to him.  To deny this to fail to understand the religion of the Romans as well. 

[head-case]

Sean, I wanted to say in my previous post that you are a step away from nazism. But in fact you're already there. Your argument is the basic claim of inherent, genetic, racial supremacy. You've just laid out the foundation for the Nuremberg laws. Only you could think that this requires further debate.

I tend to think sexual degeneracy is more of an issue, since his sexual tourism appears to support under-age prostitution and human trafficking in various Asian counties.  The smug political ranting would only be an issue if you could imagine that this pathetic sap could ever gain any influence over anyone.

[Sean]

Sean, I wanted to say in my previous post that you are a step away from nazism. But in fact you're already there. Your argument is the basic claim of inherent, genetic, racial supremacy. You've just laid out the foundation for the Nuremberg laws. Only you could think that this requires further debate.

Well I've got better things to do here than explain all this, but I was quite clear that all people, indeed in my experience, have roughly the same inherent moral abilities. Morality I very much think is a fundamental mode of perception, but which is overlaid by psychological disposition- which is arbitrary. Hence people of similar moral insight will either torture and kill the bastard who's just defrauded them, or will think okay, maybe I'll just avoid them in future.

What's going on in here is likely not any kind of greater moral perception in the latter case but just an orientation on the level of personality, also as encoded in the culture, as determined by the gene pool of average personalities in the population- of that orientation.

Hence people of equal morality then paradoxically behave more or less morally- as perceived by a finer and more intuitive mind.

[Sean]

head-case, how moronic do you have to be to either believe or regurgitate the invented trash of another moron? M forever invented that under-age gibberish out of his own twisted desires.

I can only assume they're ones you also share.

[MishaK]

Up to here:

all people, indeed in my experience, have roughly the same inherent moral abilities. Morality I very much think is a fundamental mode of perception, but which is overlaid by psychological disposition- which is arbitrary. Hence people of similar moral insight will either torture and kill the bastard who's just defrauded them, or will think okay, maybe I'll just avoid them in future.

...you're almost fine. Except that the second sentence is nonsense. Morality is not perception. Morality is the basis for socially cooperative living, which is central to the nature of homo sapiens as a social animal. The details of that may be worked out on a nurture basis, but the fundamentals are part of our nature as humans. But then your freeassociating mind runs amok:

What's going on in here is likely not any kind of greater moral perception in the latter case but just an orientation on the level of personality, also as encoded in the culture, as determined by the gene pool of average personalities in the population- of that orientation.

What is "personality", if not an amalgam of psychology (which you acknowledge is arbitrary) and personal experience (which by definition is arbitrary)? How is anything "encoded" in culture - a very vague term that in any case is likewise arbitrary and in a constant state of flux? The first paragraph is fine. But the second paragraph is runaway imagination, completely fabricated out of thin air with no understanding of any of the concepts used. Then, to top it off, you reach a conclusion that doesn't logically follow from anything you've said, even assuming the second paragraph could somehow be validated:

Hence people of equal morality behave more or less morally- as perceived by a finer and more intuitive mind.

Either "hence" means something else for you, or you are using it wrongly. First question: how on earth do you measure "morality" if not on the basis of moral or immoral behavior? How can people be morally equal but behave in morally opposite ways? Second question: WTF is a "finer and more intuitive mind"? Don't say yours. The bellowing laughter this would induce might just cause structural damage to a majority of the buildings in downtown Chicago. Intuition is the ability to guess something correctly without actually having knowledge of it, without any intervening reasoning process. How should this be superior to actual reasoning and methodical, empirical observation?

[bwv 1080]

Hence people of similar moral insight will either torture and kill the bastard who's just defrauded them, or will think okay, maybe I'll just avoid them in future.

Its not a matter of morality but of incentives.  In the West the former will get you put in prison while in some place without any rule of law, say, Somalia it may be necessary for survival.  It has nothing to do with genetics or superior sensitivities or personality - it is what behaviors work to effect one's self interest (which may simply be survival).

What's going on in here is likely not any kind of greater moral perception in the latter case but just an orientation on the level of personality, also as encoded in the culture, as determined by the gene pool of average personalities in the population- of that orientation.

What's going on is racialist fantasy land

Hence people of equal morality then paradoxically behave more or less morally- as perceived by a finer and more intuitive mind.

What is the attribute of morality that is separate from behavior?
What basis does intuition have in judging any of this?

[Sean]

Morality is the basis for socially cooperative living, which is central to the nature of homo sapiens as a social animal. The details of that may be worked out on a nurture basis, but the fundamentals are part of our nature as humans.

If you mean by that to reduce morality to a social contract or expediency I can't agree: there's a sense of right and wrong that goes beyond what we might get for acting in moral ways. At least for some people there is.

What is "personality", if not an amalgam of psychology (which you acknowledge is arbitrary) and personal experience (which by definition is arbitrary)? How is anything "encoded" in culture - a very vague term that in any case is likewise arbitrary and in a constant state of flux?

Cultures are expressions of the averge character of the inherent psychological disposition of a population; they also depend on other factors such as the physical environment but they're actually very durable things whose underlying presuppositions, giving people a rationale for the world (eg kill the guy or just avoid him) persist for many centuries despite surface changes in the society.

how on earth do you measure "morality" if not on the basis of moral or immoral behavior?

Come on, you could program a robot to act morally- but only we would know it was so acting- there's a difference between action and intent.

WTF is a "finer and more intuitive mind"? Don't say yours.

Some people see moral/ethical behaviour more clearly than others. I'm surprised an adult really asks this.

Intuition is the ability to guess something correctly without actually having knowledge of it, without any intervening reasoning process. How should this be superior to actual reasoning and methodical, empirical observation?

My views here are close to Plato's, who argued that it is impossible to knowingly act against morality- the only way you can do it is by not knowing what you're doing, ie by being less conscious, as for instance is a lion that bites your arm off because it doesn't know what it's doing. I studied ethics for several years by the way and your simplistic empirical American mind obviously don't understand that determining what is right can't be achieved by reference to reason.

[Sean]

Guys, I've had enough for a bit, maybe more deliverances for you tomorrow.

[MishaK]

If you mean by that to reduce morality to a social contract or expediency I can't agree: there's a sense of right and wrong that goes beyond what we might get for acting in moral ways. At least for some people there is.

Sorry to dissappoint you, but from an evolutionary perspective, morality has no purpose if it doesn't help preserve the society and therefore, in the case of a social animal, the species. What you are describing in terms of "getting" something for morally correct behavior vs. there being something "beyond" that is simply the distinction between short-term benefit and long-term foresight.

Cultures are expressions of the averge character of the inherent psychological disposition of a population; they also depend on other factors such as the physical environment but they're actually very durable things whose underlying presuppositions, giving people a rationale for the world (eg kill the guy or just avoid him) persist for many centuries despite surface changes in the society.

Your repeating this bull won't make it true, Goebbels's dictum notwithstanding. Feel free to discuss the durability of stoning, polygamy, witchburning or wearing headscarves or such other hallmarks of the durability of Western culture.

Come on, you could program a robot to act morally- but only we would know it was so acting- there's a difference between action and intent.

Your point?

Some people see moral/ethical behaviour more clearly than others. I'm surprised an adult really asks this.

That wouldn't be the first thing you misunderstood about adults. But tell me how do you "see more clearly" moral behavior than others? What's the method?

My views here are close to Plato's, who argued that it is impossible to knowingly act against morality- the only way you can do it is by not knowing what you're doing, ie by being less conscious, as for instance is a lion that bites your arm off because it doesn't know what it's doing.

No, they aren't. That's complete BS. If you had understood what he said, you would have understood that there cannot be such a thing as two morally equivalent individuals who behave in morally opposite ways. By virtue of behaving in an immoral way one is immoral. Unless, of course, you believe that one can in fact, contrary to Plato, knowingly and intentionally behave immorally without somehow becoming immoral as a result. You can't look into someone's mind and ascertain an intent where such intent has not manifested itself in the form of action. An intent may be formed as part of a moral reasoning process, but whether one acts on it or rejects it as immoral is what defines the morality of a human being. That is also why we don't punish people for bad thoughts but only for actual acts. One would have thought they teach that in England. BTW, a lion knows full well what it is doing. It also knows that by virtue of your not being a member of the species panthera leo you are automatically classified as "potential food". A lion's morality is only applicable in reference to its own kind.

I studied ethics for several years by the way and your simplistic empirical American mind obviously don't understand that determining what is right can't be achieved by reference to reason.

Sean. Be careful. The tectonic reverberations caused by my laughter are getting dangerous. I hate arguing on the basis of educational qualifications, since arguments don't stand or fall on the basis of the identity of the speaker but by the quality of the reasoning, but for the record: I am not American and there are no flags attached to my mind, and I can safely say that my ethics teachers vastly outrank yours. BTW, that was an ungrammatical sentence, aside from being illogical.

[Saul]

Apparently Jesus' teachings

He had no original "teachings' he just went along and preached Ideas that were rooted in Judaism, that's all.

It was Paul who later added the whole "Pagan twist" to Christianity by bringing pagan Ideas of virgin births and stories, while the first Christians who by the way were committed orthodox Jews lead by Jesus' brother, James, have all rejected Paul's heretic Ideas against the Jewish faith. Jesus never claimed that he was a son of god. It was Paul's paganistic idea, and this pagan ideas were the reason why Paul and Jesus' brother, James were fighting each other. James wanted to stay loyal to Judaism and the Torah, while Paul wanted to make Christianity a more pagan religion then a sect within Judaism. Eventually, Christianity has turned into Paul's version which is more pagan in nature, rather then James' version which was closer to orthodox traditional Judaism. This happened largely because of the Roman attacks on Israel where the majority of James' camp were destroyed and Paul's camp survived the Roman assault, therefore they went and spread 'Christianity' that was heavily influenced by the pagan world.

[knight66]

The fundamental nature of the Jewish-Roman conflict is religion.  To deny this is to fail to understand the forces that have driven the Jewish people over the centuries since God commanded Abraham to leave the land of his father and go to a new land that he promised to him.  To deny this to fail to understand the religion of the Romans as well. 

Clearly we see this differently. It is obvious that on the Jewish side this was at base about religion as much as it was about autonomy. However, I simply disagree that what the Romans did was other than provocation and insistence that the Jews bend to the will of Rome or take the consequences. The Middle East was then an unstable area, there was unrest at the edges of Syria and often war lords trying their luck. Israel was seen as being the cause of a possible domino effect across the region. So, it was ruthlessly 'sorted out'. As I say, we will not be agreeing on this.

Mike

[knight66]

My views here are close to Plato's, who argued that it is impossible to knowingly act against morality- the only way you can do it is by not knowing what you're doing, ie by being less conscious, as for instance is a lion that bites your arm off because it doesn't know what it's doing. I studied ethics for several years by the way and your simplistic empirical American mind obviously don't understand that determining what is right can't be achieved by reference to reason.

Not the Plato I have read. In The Republic he supposes that what keeps men moral is the idea that they will be found out in their wrongdoing. He provides an example of giving a man a ring that makes him invisible and thereby immune from recrimination for anything he does. Plato suggests that the first thing this 'Everyman' would do is to go into the marketplace and commit theft. He does not suggest the person is lacking in understanding of what he are doing; rather the reverse.

Mike

[Cato]

It's funny, but Carthage contested Rome's naval power, interfered with trade routes, fomented unrest in the Iberian peninsula from their settlements, and invaded the Italian peninsula.  The Jews merely wished to remain unbothered in their homeland, and worship in the style of their ancestors.  They had no armies to invade or navy to battle the Roman ships.  They were isolationist, wishing only to be left alone by the Romans as Alexander had left them alone in his conquest of the world.  The great crime of the Jews against Roman power was fidelity to God, and desire for liberty and independence, and yet the punishment was disproportionately drastic.  Why would Rome so react except because of the religious aspect of the conflict?  Jews were considered atheists and impious because they refused to worship at the altars of Jupiter, and they constantly revolted whenever the Romans tried to establish altars or temples to the Roman Gods in Judea.  How can you define the conflict as anything but religious? Certainly Judea didn't have the wealth or might of Egypt or Carthage.  Certainly Judea was no threat to the existence of the Roman Empire. 

The fundamental nature of the Jewish-Roman conflict is religion.  To deny this is to fail to understand the forces that have driven the Jewish people over the centuries since God commanded Abraham to leave the land of his father and go to a new land that he promised to him.  To deny this to fail to understand the religion of the Romans as well. 

My emphasis above: reductionism is full of peril!

Please quote the ancient sources for these claims: we have already agreed that there were misunderstandings, that Judaea was no doubt mismanaged, and those pieces of evidence are easily found in Tacitus and Cicero.  I again ask: If the Romans were such terrible anti-Jewish partisans, why on earth was the province tolerated for so long, why would a Jewish colony prosper in the city itself, why would Jews be allowed to become Roman citizens, or, better, why would they ever want to become Romans (e.g. Saul/Paul)?  

Again, please cite the ancient sources for these claims: please show where a Roman author called the Jewish War a crusade primarily against the religion of Judaism.

[Haffner]

He had no original "teachings' he just went along and preached Ideas that were rooted in Judaism, that's all.

It was Paul who later added the whole "Pagan twist" to Christianity by bringing pagan Ideas of virgin births and stories, while the first Christians who by the way were committed orthodox Jews lead by Jesus' brother, James, have all rejected Paul's heretic Ideas against the Jewish faith. Jesus never claimed that he was a son of god. It was Paul's paganistic idea, and this pagan ideas were the reason why Paul and Jesus' brother, James were fighting each other. James wanted to stay loyal to Judaism and the Torah, while Paul wanted to make Christianity a more pagan religion then a sect within Judaism. Eventually, Christianity has turned into Paul's version which is more pagan in nature, rather then James' version which was closer to orthodox traditional Judaism. This happened largely because of the Roman attacks on Israel where the majority of James' camp were destroyed and Paul's camp survived the Roman assault, therefore they went and spread 'Christianity' that was heavily influenced by the pagan world.

Sounds like you have really studied this area, Saul. Thanks so much for the exposition! It's inspiring to read such a well-thought out paragraph, especially one which obviously dismisses a priori and ad hominen arguments from the start. Fascinating!

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

States (and organisations and companies) may be composed of individuals, but they develop their own logic of survival and growth which an individual has to accept as natural if he or she wants to work for them.

Seeing the whole discussion I want to add something to that self-quotation. It isn't new, but it still bears saying - the Roman Empire is ancient history, but in a sense it never went away. In the shape of the Roman (Catholic) Church it is still with us, an institution without military power but with lots of the spiritual variety, with an emperor-turned-pope at its head. (And the Eastern Roman Empire-Byzantium survives in the Eastern Orthodox Church, I think.)

[MishaK]

Seeing the whole discussion I want to add something to that self-quotation. It isn't new, but it still bears saying - the Roman Empire is ancient history, but in a sense it never went away. In the shape of the Roman (Catholic) Church it is still with us, an institution without military power but with lots of the spiritual variety, with an emperor-turned-pope at its head.

But your self-quotation isn't quite correct insofar as that inner logic of organizations evolves over time, in some cases to such an extent that it is unrecognizeable compared to where it started. It is likewise a stretch to see the modern Catholic Church as the successor of the Roman Empire.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

But your self-quotation isn't quite correct insofar as that inner logic of organizations evolves over time, in some cases to such an extent that it is unrecognizeable compared to where it started. It is likewise a stretch to see the modern Catholic Church as the successor of the Roman Empire.

It may be a stretch, but think back 1500 years - the Roman Empire had become Christian, its seat was (partly) in Rome. The Emperor had been God, in the Christianized Roman Empire that would place the Emperor more or less in the role of a ruler by divine right, as we later had in absolutist times (I'm thinking aloud here, just connecting things, I have still a lot to read about this). I do think there is a continuity there.

[Haffner]

But your self-quotation isn't quite correct insofar as that inner logic of organizations evolves over time, in some cases to such an extent that it is unrecognizeable compared to where it started. It is likewise a stretch to see the modern Catholic Church as the successor of the Roman Empire.

I agree here, and I admire the Hegelian way you put this.

[Saul]

The Roman occupation of Israel and the eventual destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem and then the Exile of the Jews out of their land was in no means a natural occurrence, guided by the 'natural course of things'.

The famous Jewish Historian  Josephus Plavius who happened to be a first rate witness of the War of Rome against the Jews,  noted that the Romans were made to understand what it means to fight the Lions of Judah.

The Jews caused major shocks and blows to the Roman legions, and  the Roman Generals had to summon other legions that were stationed  elsewhere within the Roman Empire to come and take over the destroyed legions.

After the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem the Prophet Jeremiah said that no one would have ever believed the Gates of Zion would have been breached and Jerusalem captured by a foreign power.

Why?

Because the Jews were an extremely powerful nation who had the ability to defend itself.

A clear evidence from written history outside of Biblical sources would be the Jewish victory over Ancient Greece. In that time, the mighty armies of the Greek Empire were destroyed by the Mighty Maccabee Warriors of Israel lead by Judah Maccabee and his brothers. These Jews were able to stand up against  the Kingdom of Greece who was the Superpower of the time, and defeat it and restore Jewish way of life.

Josephus Plavius, the historian mentioned above recounts that when the Roman General Titus neared Jerusalem, he told his legions that  they don't need  to engage in battle with the Jews, for he sees that the Jews are engaged in a civil war, therefore no attack was necessary. Titus was the last of the Roman Empire that was sent to finally capture Jerusalem and quell the Jewish uprising. All previous attempts of Rome were unsuccessful for the Jews have greatly damaged the Roman Legions and the Moral of its soldiers.

From this we clearly see that  the Romans would have been destroyed by the Jews if the Jews were not busy in a bitter civil war. Now we need to understand what was the reason for this civil war.

The Civil war was waged between different groups  within the Jewish resistance against Roman occupation of Israel. These groups were united with the single purpose of destroying Roman occupation, but they were in conflict as to which group is going to lead.  Another element was that these Jewish Resistance groups went against the Ruling of the Jewish Sages which forbade an open war against Rome. The Jewish sages of Israel and its priests were against a Jewish revolt and an uprising, but these resistance groups  ignored the Rabbinical ruling and decided to battle the Romans. Aside of their total disregard to Jewish Law they have captured the regular citizens of Israel as hostages threatening them that they must join the resistance.

Who were these resistance groups?

They were the vast minority of the Jews , most of them were criminals and the low of the low of the Jewish people. They captured the Jewish people and forced them to wage war against Rome.

Time now tells how right were the Sages of Israel who ruled against an uprising. Because of this Jewish resistance, millions of Jews were murdered and Jerusalem was razed to the ground.

Now, one has to ask the obvious question:

Why did the Jews won the Greek Empire even though they were few in numbers and poorly trained ,but with the Roman Empire they lost so terribly with millions of casualties ?

Its important to remember that the Maccabean Victory over Greece was only 2 to 3 hundred years before the Roman occupation of Israel.

The answer to that question is simple for those  who have faith in G-d and are aware of the special close relationship that G-d has with the Jewish people.

G-d says in the Torah that if the Jews will not go in accordance to his commandments he will
bring upon Israel "a nation from afar – as an eagle flies". The eagle is the symbol  of ancient Rome . So without the hand of G-d in all of these events things will not make sense to us at all.


Another reason is that in the case of the Jewish victory over Greece it was the Jewish Sages that advocated resistance against Greek occupation, for they knew and understood that Greece wanted to wage a war against the G-d of  Israel and the Torah, they wanted to destroy spirituality and concentrate on the worshipping of the body and the physical.

So Greek occupation was mostly based on religious elements, therefore the first resistance came from the religious Jews who wanted to restore the Religious Jewish way of Life.

In the case of Rome, it was more a political and geographical occupation where the Romans were looking to expand their territory and gain new grounds, therefore in this instance the Sages of Israel didn't want to begin an uprising for they understood that this Roman occupation was a punishment for the weakening  of Jewish adherence to the Torah. They chose to inspire the Jewish people to repent and to come closer to G-d , and G-d will eventually cause the Romans to leave, for he controls the hearts of Kings and rulers and sways them in accordance to his will.

To put it simply:

If its against your Torah - We will rise up and defend  = The Jewish Maccabees in the time of Chanukah.

If its against our bodies and political stature - we will repent and pray to you that you will cause our enemies to fall in front of us, for only you have the power to save us = The Sages of Israel in the times of Roman occupation. Hezekiah, the King of Judah in the time when the Assyrian King wanted to destroy Jerusalem and the G-d of Israel sent an Angle to destroy him and his army and save Israel. Mordechi and Queen Ester when Haman the wicked of Persia wanted to destroy the Jewish people, and Ester and Mordechi inspired the Jewish people to come closer to G-d, and then G-d had destroyed their enemies, and there are other examples.

So we see that Jewish history is guided by the hand of G-d, for if they are close to him and follow his commandments, no nation how strong, can do them any harm. But, if they will not be close to G-d and will not follow the commandments of the Torah, they will be punished by their enemies as it says in Genesis :

" The voice is the voice of Jacob and the hand is the hand of Esau"

Jacob, the father of the Jewish people, and his brother Esau his greatest enemy.

The Sages explain the verse:

When does the hand of Esau does not have power over Jacob? They answer: when the voice of Jacob is heard from the Yeshivas and Torah learning centers, when the Jews are busy with the voice of Jacob, the Torah. But when the voice of Jacob is not heard, when the Jewish people do not learn the Torah, then the hand of Esau their enemy becomes strong and has the ability to strike.

The Romans come from Esau, Jacob's brother, they got their power from the poor Jewish adherence to the Torah. But when the Messiah will come, the long awaited Jewish redeemer, he will strengthen Jewish adherence to the Torah as the prophets clearly said, and that will cause the enemies of Israel to weaken and fall in front of them.

Even now, the situation with the "Palestinian Arabs" doesn't make any sense.

How can it be that these people can cause so much trouble to one of the Greatest military powers in history?

Because the leaders of the state of  Israel today are secular and are not interested to live in a Torah way of life. That creates power within the enemies of Israel who instinctively feel  where Jewish weakness is. For they know that Israel cant be won if they are dedicated to the Torah, but they can be won, if they are not dedicated to the Torah, and even the greatest military force cant help them, for Jewish existence is not guaranteed through the natural way of things, but its heavenly guided, and these Muslims feel that if they are strong in faith but not so strong in arms they stand a chance against the Jews who are strong in arms and weak in Faith.

But these things wont help the Muslims, for Abraham has sent Ishmael away from him at the advice of Sarah as G-d had told him :' Whatever Sarah tells you , listen to her".
Sarah said :" This son of the maid will not inherit with my Son Isaac".

Therefore the Muslims who are the decedents of Ishmael will not have power over Israel and in the end of times when the Messiah will come to save the Jewish people and return them to Israel from the exiles, the G-d of Israel will destroy the spiritual Minster of Ishmael and will destroy the wicked Kingdom of Ishmael. (Every nation has a spiritual Minster rooted in the heavens, as the Torah says that before G-d had destroyed Egypt, he destroyed Egypt's spiritual Minster in the heavens, with no spiritual Minster, Egypt crumbled before Israel and the Jews were saved).

Another element is that Muslim power over the land of Israel comes from the merit of circumcision. They do not perform the commandment like the Law requires, they only do half. While the Jews perform the circumcision just like Abraham Isaac and Jacob did, fully with all its rules and requirements. The Torah connects Jewish  power and right to the land of Israel with circumcision. The Jews do it rightfully and correctly, but the Arabs do it incorrectly, therefore their power over the land of Israel will cease just like their incomplete circumcision, and the powers of Ishmael will be disconnected and destroyed, and without their spiritual powers, the Arabs/Muslims will fall before Israel and the Jews will regain the power and the  sovereignty on all of the ancient land of Israel, the land of their forefathers. This last paragraph is based on the sacred Jewish book  the  'Zohar'

Best Wishes,

Saul