Arafat's PA Terms Settlers "Terrorists", Declines to Condemn Murder of Israeli Family

Some definitions of terrorists in Yassar Arafats dictionary : A pregnant woman, children in cars,people riding in busses,people who live in settlements,Zionists,Jews,Christians, and of course anyone who is not a muslim.

What can be more cowardly then killing a pregnant woman and her daughters. The isrealis should really kill this guy. Stories like this really get me riled up. Just imagine how that woman felt when she was attacked. She must have felt so helpless and scared.

SUGGESTION, PLEA, etc.

There is an online newspaper called ArabNews that is the quasi-official electronic propaganda rag of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Its "news" is a spew of anti-Americanism and anti-Israel propaganda. You know the kind--has a permanent "Remembering 911" link that does not work and a "Life of the Prophet" one that, of course, does.

It does, however, have one good feature. It has a "Comment" capability so that the Dhimmis can send kiss a-- messages back.

MY SUGGESTION TO ALL OF YOU:

Go to www.arabnews.com and go to the "comment" buttons at the bottom of the stories. Then GIVE 'EM HELL.

I particularly suggest listing, over and over and over again the names of Mrs. Hatuel and her five children. You can get them from the Israeli foreign ministry website www.israel.org

My apologies to Mr. Spencer if I am taking advantage of his site, but this is war.

Rick:

I don't mind your talking about this, but I must urge everyone not to bombard Arab News or anyone else with abusive remarks, insults, etc. Such will not serve any purpose except to reinforce prejudices, increase antagonism, and possibly even jeopardize Jihad Watch as a whole.

The most effective way to write to them, if you are so inclined, is to be very specific (and adjective-less) about what they are doing that you find offensive, and ask a lot of questions. Yes, this is war. Let us fight so as to win.

Cordially,
Robert Spencer

while i would not catagorize them as terrorist. that whole settler movement from the beginning has been the tool of fundamentalists in israel. just look at the whole idea its basically a tool for grabbing territory and then protecting it with the gun. the underlying idea for both sides for say hamas is a palistein with no jews and for the hard liner israelis its a israel with no palistinians. i wonder how long this whole thing will last before israel decides to ethnically clense the entire palistinian territorys and push them into jordan,lebanon, and egypt

Joey,

You don't consider child-killers terrorists. You also follow the dhimmi line of apologizing for the most appalling acts of inhumanity. That puts you on the side of Reza and his ilk. How very "tolerant" of you. Of course, if you ever had occassion to travel to Israel, be careful. If you look white, jewish, foreign, those brave jihadis might try to kill you, just on principle. But hey, at least you are on the same team.

cheers

The real story would be nice the Arabs told the Arabs in Israel to leave so they could take all the land well the Arabs got their butts kicked and lost some of their land . Then they told the other Arabs that had left to bad we don't want you in our land you are not good enough.
Now let those who live here in the USA look at the western states and think about giving it back to Mexico because we paid for some but we also won the rest in a war. So the big ? is when the mexicains start killing Americains for our land will we just give it up without a fight?

Arik's primary job is to protect Israeli lives. Hence, Arafat must be killed. Now.

And, Joseph? Your moral equivalency makes me sick. Although, I finally can agree with something you have posted- to best assure Israel's security, ethnic cleansing of its Arab minority will be required. It's ugly, but it's the best of many unpalatable options- think Turkey and Greece. Think India and Pakistan/Bangaldesh.

Question for Robert Spencer:

Have you read "When Devils Walk the Earth" by Col. Ralph Peters?

If not, you should. I think that 25 years from now it will be regarded as the "X" Article of the War Against Jihad or whatever history finally names this conflict.

This is my real name and my e-mail address is real if you would like to answer directly.

My dear Ricky D. Calhoun,

"Have you read 'When Devils Walk the Earth' by Col. Ralph Peters?"

Yes.

Cordially,
Robert Spencer

Photos of the victims:

http://haganah.us/harchives/001937.html

Honostly.....Americans are more interested in who will win American Idol.

basil i have a hypothetical question for you.

if say we reversed the situation in israel and the israeli's where muslim and the palistinians where jewish

would you still be so pro israeli(if they where muslim)?

or is your strong support for one side more to do with your personal religious faith or a anti muslim bias?

my personal take on the whole situation is both sides have commited equal ammount of atrocities on each other and both are guilty i refuse to hold one more accountable.

doh messed up my posted by

that was a liberal joseph post if you could not already tell

Google,

I would not blindly support Israel. I would oppose Israel, if they acted in the manner in which palestineans act. In fact, I was somewhat supportive of palestineans before the "intefada" began 3-4 years ago. The tactics they use, the goals they claim, make me unable to support them now. Their celebration of 9/11, and crimes like this convince me they are not interested of, or capable of maintaining, a civil society.

You are unwilling to hold one side accountable. I think both are accountable for their actions. I also think it is the lack of accountability on the part of palestineans which has contributed to their descent into savagery.

p.s. I am not jewish.

cheers

Stop sending a check from the American goverment supporting the Palestinians.

Let their muslim brothers take care of them.

Maybe if their muslim brothers would spend money taking care of them, then less money would end up going towards terrorism.

Oh, thats right.....they don't care either.

Joseph,

Apparently you read your history books with a slant as well. Even before Palestine - in the original use of the word that was meant as Jews - was created and renamed Israel, the Jewish settlers were buying up land from absentee Muslim landowners. They sold them the deserts, the swamps and any and all useless land they could find, while laughing at them for being fools enough to buy it. Then, through hard work, determination and loss of life, the Jews made the desert bloom. Suddenly, there was money to be made and a large influx of Arabs came in and squatted on the land hoping to get a piece of the action.

Within ten to twenty years, partition was allowed and the Jewish settlers decided to form a state. (Btw, the Palestinian Arabs could have done that themselves if they had been in the correct mindset; but as Abba Eban said quite correctly, "The Palestinians (Arabs) never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity.") After Israel declared its statehood, the new nation begged its Palestinian Arab population to stay and help them fight the onslaught of the five Arab nations, which were sending their armies to destroy the fledgling state. The Israelis dropped leaflets in Arabic in the Arab settlements begging them to "please stay and help us and after the war we will build this state together." On the other side, the Arab nations said to the Palestinians, "Go ahead and leave, we will attack them, drive them into the sea and then when you return we will give you the unoccupied land." Based on this, the Palestinian Arabs chose their sides. Most chose to leave. A foolish choice in hindsight. (They were not innocent victims.) Once Israel won their war of Independence, the Palestinian Arabs wanted to come back but the Jews were not interested in taking in turncoats. The other Arab nations weren't interested in taking them in either. I guess they paid the price for their greed and assumption of Israel's defeat.

All of this said, don't come and give this tired littany of leftist thought that Israel was "land grabbing." Prior to their war of Independence, they bought over a third of it outright and won the rest in that defensive war. By all international standards, they have done nothing wrong.

Google troll:

"my personal take on the whole situation is both sides have commited equal ammount of atrocities on each other and both are guilty i refuse to hold one more accountable"

This sort of moral equivalency is generally repellant to me. But, in your case, your absolute lack of knowledge of the issues is clear- so you've not only confirmed your ignorance, but anything else you have posted may be safely disregarded.

IF (I know, it's going to be a stretch for you) you would like to educate yourself as to the history of the mid-east, I suggest:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html

and

http://www.palestinefacts.org/

Move your lips and finger slowly when reading, try to understand what your have read, then come back when you have something intelligent to add.

Idiot.

So Israel's PM Ariel Sharon's plan to withdraw from Gaza looks like it's been stalled (by a mix of Israelis, rather rationally, perturbed at the consequences of a likely terror-centre consolidating, quite unchecked, in the Strip and an "international community" which says it wants Israel out but opposes and undermines any moves for it to do so).

Oh, the "international community" - assenting, reluctantly, when pressed hard, to Israel's right to defend itself IN PRINCIPLE, but never, ever IN PRACTICE!

Mr Sharon could find his tenure curtailed as a result of this, but it need not be a wasted opportunity. If he must head out of office, then, at this juncture, he ought to take the vile Arafat out with him (and I don't mean into retirement on a nice ranch).

No, it could soon be the time for Arafat's long-overdue, final cancellation. His removal from the picture will indubitably serve as the necessary "circuit-breaker" in the situation, since he's the primary obstacle to whatever progress may be possible.

His demise would promptly and concretely determine whether the purported "moderate 'Palestinian' majority" - claimed to be muzzled by his authoritarian misrule - will stand up and make a bona-fide peace with Israel, or whether (if they truly exist) they won't.

Then there'll either be another war with Israel (which the "Palestinians" and Arabs'll again lose badly) or else (a much better option) "Palestine" will be consumed by the bloody anarchy and civil war upon whose verge it's been hovering for at least the past year or so.

It'll be imperative that this conflict be stringently contained, once it breaks out. In the future, if any chastened "Palestinian" survivors emerge, they might be better disposed towards making a proper peace; if not, let them fight on with one another, to their total extinction.

In God's name(or anything else you prefer), could someone rational please tell me what kind of state these people would create if it ever came about? For 50 years or so this delusion has dragged on and on, at the cost we see all around us to-day. When will some leader in the world stand up and say enough, and withdraw from this collective delusion on creating a state for these lunatics?

HG

Why do you think arafat is an obstacle in anything? He doesnt have enough authority to go to his bathroom now, and definitely arafat is not the problem. The problem was the israeli occupation of palestine 50 years ago, and as now the situation is normal, its not for us. Why cant israel have enough sense to give back to the palestinians their 1967 land so that this headache will be over and everybody may lead normal lives. It solved the problem with egypt, so why not try it with the palestinians?
The palestinians did not start it, so they cant finish it. Israelis do have to be less arrogant and do everything single-sidedly.

thanks

Tarek:

I don't know if you've read the latest news, but overnight the "Mideast Quartet", the US plus even your blessèd UN, EU and Russia, have all called urgently for "new leadership" of the "Palestinians"!

Why? Because it's at length dawning on them that Arafat is indeed the key obstacle to peace which I described.

He sits smugly in his Muqata, doing nothing other than plotting, paying for and condoning terrorism, inciting his people to virulent hatred, ensuring that their school-children are taught it instead of anything more positive and promoting it hourly through his media and mosques, etc.

In 1948, the "Palestinians" and their brothers rejected the state offered them by the UN, but, despite the invasion of the nascent Israel by 5 of their armies, failed to eliminate it.

In 1967 - with Arafat in control of the PLO - after a further, disastrous, endeavour to attack Israel, at the Rabat Conference, the "Palestinians" and their brothers announced their total rejection of any future negotiations or compromise.

In 1974, following the peace that Israel concluded with Egypt, under the Camp David I agreement, the "Palestinians" were invited to join, but vociferously rebuffed the request.

From 1993, they constantly violated the spirit and the letter of the Oslo accords with unceasing terrorism (personally spurred and directed by Arafat), dooming the advent of any peace.

In July 2000, Arafat categorically refused the unprecedented concessions laid before him at Camp David II and, instead, in September, he ignited the terrorist "el-Aqsa Intefada".

Ever since, he's spurned all practicable moves for peace (though occasionally lying to his gullible Western audience that he was interested, while simultaneously reassuring his Arab claque of the truth, that he'll never halt his aggressions until "victory" - i.e. the eradication of Israel from the map).

As to the "1967 land": the extent of this, according to the binding instrument of UN Resolution 242 of 1967, is a matter for negotiation between Israel and the "Palestinians".

Israel's called upon "to withdraw from territories" (NOT "the territories" or "all the territories", as some, wrongly, would have it): explicitly, it means SOME territories, with those areas to be vacated to be demarcated in mutual discussions - not by force.

Apart from your ignorance of history, I'm mostly troubled by your reference to "Israeli occupation 50 years ago" - it signifies to me that, even if Israel were to go back to the "Green Line" (the 1949 - 1967 armistice-line, which has NEVER been recognized as an international boundary, least of all by the Arab states), it wouldn't be far enough for you.

Just in from Israel.

It was also learned that the terrorists not only murdered the 34-year-old mother of four who was eight months pregnant along with her children, but then ran up to the vehicle and took a video of the results of their actions, filming the young victims as they bled to death.

Davo:

If that is true...

May God have mercy on the Palestinians when the Israelis start playing it on television.

but then ran up to the vehicle and took a video of the results of their actions, filming the young victims as they bled to death.

I am SURE..(lol)..that there will be ARAB OUTRAGE over this slaughter of innocent women and children...after all they are a PEACEFUL cult...evertime the arabs ignore disgusting acts commited by their own and are outraged over a picture of a woman laughing at some guys willy their "outrage" becomes more and more laughable and boring.

HG

The question is want to ask is how can arafat do all this without moving from his HQ, something i dont understand. If you did have some vision, maybe you will recognize that who is doing all this is actually the military groups inside palestine.

The other point is that the 1967 land, which then belonged to jordan and Egypt, are not negotiable, as they are the gaza strip and the west bank. What is negotiable is how much will Israeli forces withdraw from these lands, and im pretty sure that almost three-quarters of it will NEVER be returned to palestinians.

Yasser arafat was not the fault for all the peace agreements, but the general environment before gave him hope of getting more land, and if you would like to know Egypt was boycotted for about 15 years after the camp david agreement.

PS Thank you for your history lesson, but it wasnt necessary

thanks

Tarek:

You may not need a history lesson, but you sure need one in basic English composition and grammar.