Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses what might happen to Christian holy sites and other monuments in Israel if the Jewish State disappeared:
Israel's disappearance would have several consequences:1) The Old City, all of Jerusalem, and all of the sites in the Holy Land that matter to the world's Christians (of course all Jewish sites, which should matter to the world's Christians) would be firmly in Muslim control. There might at first be noises about "allowing under the right conditions" some Christians to visit. But the islamization of the city would proceed. All synagogues and many churches would be razed, as they were in Muslim-ruled times past. The Western Wall would no doubt be fully incorporated into some grand new mosque. The remaining Christians and Jews would not at first be massacred -- those who had dared to stay. They might at first be treated simply the way, say, Copts are treated in Egypt. Tolerated, but under constant threat. Or as Maronites have come to be treated in their own country, Lebanon, where for more than a thousand years they withstood, in the mountains, the Muslim invaders. Or like Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh, under constant threat, fleeing when they can, enduring when they can.
2) The moral consequences to the Western psyche would be grave. All thinking people would realize, would come to realize, that after the entire history of the persecution and mass-murder of the Jews, that in the full light of history, a horrible injustice had been done. After two thousand years, the Jews had finally managed, after acts of fabulous, story-book heroism, to recreate their tiny state, their commonwealth, and managed to in-gather so many survivors of both European antisemitism at its murderous worst, and of Muslim anti-Infidel persecution at its cruelest – and now this.
Yet, despite these obvious facts, Europeans (and others as well) have permitted the growth of an entirely false narrative of the Arab Muslim Jihad (aided by Arab "islamochristians") against the inoffensive Jewish state. This narrative has been filled out with the steady daily drip of falsehoods in the press, the radio, and on television, by Arabs and Muslims, and by those who, out of diseased third-worldism or old-fashioned antisemitism -- further aided by the widespread ignorance of the most elementary facts of history – hope to benefit from it. Israel has become the permanent whipping-boy, and because the menace of Islam could not be faced, it was so much more comforting to believe that there was only the matter of Israel to set Muslim against Christian. So Israel was not recognized merely as one part of a Greater Jihad, but instead as the entire cause of whatever hostility Muslims felt toward Christians. And for obvious psychological reasons, for the mental stability of those who were engaged in this cruel abandonment, it made things easier for them if they could first convince themselves that the Israelis were the aggressors, the ones who were in the wrong. And, looking backward, it also allowed a new generation of Europeans to overcome any feelings of guilt that they might have experienced if they looked, steadily and whole, at the entire history of the Jews in Europe. Lacking the mental and emotional stamina, eager to flee from the truth, of course intent on accepting the Arab and Muslim presentation of events, they have never done so.
Israel is under no obligation to recognize any U.N. Resolution, given the farce of the Arab-Muslim bloc that forms, as it has for the past thirty years, the only solid bloc at the U.N. But it does. It chooses to recognize Resolution 242. Resolution 242, analyzed at great length by all sorts of people. One was Raymond Aron, who in his French pamphlet on the wording discussed in detail the differences, in English and French, of the phrase "withdrawal from territories" and "withdrawal from the territories" and in French, how both phrases became "des territoires." Another was the great Australian jurist (whom Roscoe Pound, Dean of Harvard Law School, regarded as one of the greatest writers on jurisprudence of the past century) Professor Julius Stone, whose unanswerable and exhaustive discussion of Israel's right to hold onto the West Bank (and Gaza -- a right it has now, for shallow calculations of raison d'etat, forfeited) -- needs to be consulted.The important thing in that resolution is that Israel is required, or not required but asked, to withdraw to "secure and defensible borders." It is up to Israel, now understanding or being forced to understand, the nature of the relentless and endless Jihad and of the instruments of that Jihad, to calculate precisely what those "secure and defensible borders" are. And it is up to the sensible non-Israelis, as they themselves pass judgment on what that phrase "secure and defensible borders" might mean, to keep in mind the asymmetries of wealth and population between the Jews of Israel and the Arabs, and even the Muslims -- not only in the immediate vicinity, but all over. They should also consider carefully what, if they were Israelis, if they lived in Israel, if their children and grandchildren would have to be worried about, what they would consider to be "secure and defensible borders."
Sharon is a military man. He is a politician. He has not distinguished himself as a student of Islam, a student of Muslim psychology, or a thoughtful man. He is an abrupt man, who likes dramatic gestures. He is a stubborn man, and an autocratic one, who feels free to decide what he thinks best, even if he in doing so betrays completely the solemn commitments he made to those who elected him. I think he is a fool, and I think he is a dangerous fool. And in not finding him impressive, any more than one finds that Fool of Chelm Peres impressive, or Rabin, or that sentimentalist (as he proved to be, so eager to be loved: "Sadat and Carter like me. They really like me") Begin, they all show that from 1920 on, Jews in what became Israel had only a handful of clear-sighted leaders, and even they had not factored in Islam. How could they? They just did not know enough; for them it was enough that "the Arabs" (including Christian Arabs, or islamochristians) were against them, and that, for decades, the main worry had to be the threat of the Nazis. Few in the Western world until recently bothered to investigate Islam, and Muslims themselves, until they acquired the OPEC wealth, and what power it gave them to aggressively push Da'wa, and until they found themselves allowed to settle, amazingly, behind what they consider to be enemy, because Infidel, lines, knew about Islam. Why should the Israelis have been any more attentive than people in France or England or Belgium or Spain?
The bitter fruit of all this ignorance could be the fall of Israel. And the fall of Israel will lead, not to that Kantian eternal peace, but to triumphalism all over the Muslim world. And the Muslim world, now, because of all the dithering especially about such matters as Israel, is now -- all over.
Global warming, and global swarming. Both require, in part, the same remedies -- doing everything possible to limit OPEC revenues, and the use of fossil fuels.
It will be difficult to undo what has been done. More, more, more -- that's the cry from Beijing and Bombay to Baltimore, Birmingham, and Bordeaux. More, more, more stuff, stuff, stuff. Radix malorum cupiditas est.
The notion of Israel's disappearance has to be taken seriously. Indeed, Sharon's stupid decision to pull out of Gaza will prove disasterous. It only reinforced and emboldened the mass psyche of Moslems everywhere. They need to be handed losses, not no-contest wins accompanied by billions of dollars in Jizyah.
In short, combine the EU's open antisemitism with Bush's fantasy of Disney Islam spell big trouble for Israel.
The Jews must quit recycling the same tired old leaders and bring up a new breed. Trouble is, self-loathers abound among younger Israeli Jews.
SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT
As the Moslems continue their current unabated winning streak, I see a future of military takeovers, martial law, and MAD-centric hegemonic relations vis a vis the growing ranks of Sharia states.
Should Israel fall, look for an immediate shift to the EU states, where the MSM and Moslem leaders will bring into sharp focus the myriad infidel crimes committed by Christian Europeans against the honor of Islam.
Don't bank on #2. The only ones that would feel this way would be those who already support Israel. Those that oppose Israel, of whatever political stripe, would celebrate like a Palestinian on 9/11. And when the Jihadists continued their attacks, they would either not understand why, or now be free to turn their full wrath onto the United States. Perhaps the next essay should be "What if the U.S. disappeared?"
Hugh, since you raise the possibility of a Kantian "Perpetual Peace" (and rightly note it wouldn't happen if Israel were destroyed), please note that Bush's strategy in Iraq has a powerful whiff of that old "enlightened" Prussian.
Kant held that a concert of free republics would guarantee peace in Europe, since their governments would be accountable to the people from among whom the cannon-fodder is drawn. Bush similarly seems to feel that by democratizing the Middle East beyond Israeli and (occasionally) Turkish borders, he might be able to defuse that international powder keg.
Peculiarly enough, the Iraq [mis-?]adventure has indeed emboldened a number of Middle Eastern voices dissatisfied with the dictatorial traditions of the region. We should all take notice when as much was said by someone like Walid Jumblatt, the Lebanese Druze leader who was not all that pro-American to begin with.
While highly sceptical myself, I still pray Bush turns out to have been right.
There is a reason Israel still exists at all in an age of WMD; their warlike neighbors can recognize their own annihilation.
Considering that Israel is surrounded by hostile savages bent on their destruction, and that they have but a pittance of the total muslim populations arrayed against them, Israel still survives. They do so because of their nuclear arsenal.
Let the mullahs talk, its all they are good at. Rivers of blood, pillars of fire, arab armies majestically sweeping across the deserts into Israel...*yawn*...its just talk.
The arab and persian peoples hate their own masters far worse than they hate Israel.
"I still pray Bush turns out to have been right."
--- from a posting above
In "La vie de Pere Avvakum" (ed. by Pierre Pascal, who in the 1920s was a Communist sympathizer and had a life full of twists and turns, and finally became a scholar of Russian at the Sorbonne, and an editor of Avvakum), there is this line: "Prie Dieu, Prie Dieu, Prie Dieu derechef." Pray to the Lord, pray to the Lord, pray to the Lord over and over again.
That's one bit of advice, from Avvakum and the unforgettable Professor Pierre Pascal.
Here's another bit of advice, quite different in import:
"Down went the gunner, a bullet was his fate
Down went the gunner, then the gunners mate
Up jumped the sky pilot, gave the boys a look
And manned the gun himself as he laid aside The Book, shouting
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition and we'll all stay free!
Praise the Lord and swing into position!
Can't afford to sit around and wishin'
Praise the Lord we're all between perdition
and the deep blue sea!
Yes the sky pilot said it
You've got to give him credit
for a son - of - gun - of - a - gunner was he,
Shouting;
Praise the Lord we're on a mighty mission!
All aboard, we're not a - goin' fishin;
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition and we'll all stay free!"
That song, written by Frank Loesser (he of "Sit Down You're Rockin' the Boat" and "Everlovin' Adelaide" Guys-and-Dolls fame), was based on a real incident at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941:
"Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition"; was written by Frank Loesser. According to the song a chaplain ("sky pilot") was with some fighting men who were being attacked by an enemy. (Generally given at the time to be the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.) He was asked to say a prayer for the men who were engaged in the firing at the on-coming Japanese planes. The chaplain; the song went on to infer, put down his bible, manned one of the ship's gun turrets and begin firing back, saying, "Praise The Lord and pass the ammunition".
Now; however, there are now facts available setting the story straight.
According to the writer, Jack S. McDowall, through the years the lyrics of the song have generally credited "a chaplain" manning the gun turrets of a ship, while under attack. "This was not true". says, McDowell.
For some time, long after the attack at Pearl Harbor, stories and reports continued to pop-up about the incident, involving a chaplain who was to have uttered the now famous words, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."
These stories eventualy made their way through the servicemen back to the press. The press, as McDowell noted, . . . led some writers erroneously to identify other chaplains as authors of the phrase.
Nonetheless, the real Chaplain, Howell Forgy, aboard the U.S.S. New Orleans; during the Japanese attack, was that Chaplain. He was a Lieutenant (j.g.) on that Sunday morning in December, 1941.
Another Lieutenant who had been in charge of an ammunition line on the USS New Orleans during the attack remembered.
"I heard a voice behind me saying, Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. I turned and saw Chaplain Forgy walking toward me along the line of men. He was patting the men on the back and making that remark to cheer them and keep them going. I know it helped me a lot, too", he said.
Another Lieutenant j.g. said, the men aboard the USS New Orleans would thereafter kid Chaplain Forgy about the role he played whenever they heard the song that had been written. They also encouraged him to set the record straight as to who actually said what. According to that same Lieutenant the Chaplain would decline saying he felt "the episode should remain a legend rather than be associated with any particular person."
Author McDowell said that press reporters were eventually permitted to interview men of the U.S.S. New Orleans involved in the "ammunition" story. Chaplain Forgy's superior officers set up a meeting with some of the press and; at last, the the real story of the wonderful song and the wonderful man who had inspired it was finally confirmed.
The preceeding information was provided by Henry Wristen, President of the U.S.S New Orleans (CA-32) Reunion Association.
"Pearl Harbor: Remembered" Web site thanks him."
Why do I offer Avvakum and Frank Loesser together again at last? Well, both offer possible ways to deal wtih the same situation. But in these tremendous times, I'd like to put in a word for Frank Loesser's song, based on that Pearl Harbor chaplain's statement("Praise the Lord, and Pass the Ammunition") as being the more certain, the safer, of the two.
Of course the word "ammunition" has to be understood as including more than merely what you put into guns and cannons, or load onto planes. "Ammunition" can be books that help in the mass education of Infidels, and the education, slightly less mass, of their leaders and especially of all those whose duty it is to protect -- the military, the police, the intelligence services. And "ammunition" can be helping to alert people, in all sorts of ways, to the instruments of Jihad that are not spectacular, do not involve either acts of terrorism or even military combat ("qital") at all, but may slowly undermine, from within, a country, a people, that people's and that country's resolve to defend itself, or even to know that it has to defend itself, or what it is defending.
I like Avvakum. But I love Frank Loesser. And for dealing with Islam, I'd stick to praising the Lord, and passing that ammunition.
The premise is nonsense. Israel has it's neighbors on notice that it will exercise the "Samson Option". When Israel loses 50,000 civilians, the Muslims will lose 50 million. This is part of IDF strategy. Israel believes in "Never Again" whether it be from fascism or Islam. If Israel believes it is threatened with extinction, the Muslim world will receive a beating like it has never felt before.
Don't worry about Israel, worry about those idiots who work against it.
"The premise is nonsense. Israel has it's neighbors on notice that it will exercise the "Samson Option". When Israel loses 50,000 civilians, the Muslims will lose 50 million."
-- from a poster above
Why do you assume the disappearance of Israel would be the result of a military attack, any more than the transformation of Western Europe would be the result of direct military conquest?
"Why do you assume the disappearance of Israel would be the result of a military attack...?"
Nowhere in my post do I insist that Israel will fall due to military attack.
Who is assuming Israel will disappear? The IDF is prepared for demographic problems, military attack, anything. If the Muslims begin to cause large scale civilian losses, Israel will do whatever it takes to survive. That includes internal suicide-bomber operations.
Western Europe is a completely different dynamic than Israel. For one, Israel has a survival instinct. The elite in Europe really don't care what happens to their nations as long as they are still in charge.
"The IDF is prepared for demographic problems..."
-- from a posting above
How is the IDF "prepared for demographic problems"? Within what borders? With what room for the Jewish population to grow? With what incentives for the Muslim population not to grow, or to diminish? And what effect would reducing Israel's size still further have on the stir-craziness of Israel's Jewish population, and the desire of some or more than some to emigrate? Tout se tient. Everything connects.
Explain to me all about that IDF preparation for "demographic problems." Tell me again that everyone in Israel has coolly, calmly, taken in the complete situation and knows that Sharon knows exactly what he is doing. Trust him. Trust Sharon and his new best friend and loyal new member of Sharon's new party, Shimon Peres. Why?
At the risk of being unpopular, I have to disagree.
I think the withdrawal was a great move and more will be required to secure israel.
As a liberal agnostic Jew, I believe that...
1. Israel should retreat to as close to the 67 border as realistically possible (some land transfer) Gaza and West Bank must be in some way linked
2. Build the tallest wall Israel can afford on the border (along with detectors for tunneling and air attempts)
3. Post online EXACTLY how Israel will respond to Rocket Attacks (so there are no suprises)
4. No right of return for Palestinians except immediate families (if the Arab Jews don't get their land back neither should Palestinians)
5. Try to lift the economic wealth of Israeli Arabs to stabalize their birth rate and promote Israeli Nationalism within the muslim community
6. Wish the Palestinians best of luck but they are on their own. If Palestine turns into a Sharia state, it won't be our fault.
No negotiations with the PA. (I like Muhmood Abbas but cmon, he is impotent againt Hamas) We have to do this on our own and factor in what realistic Palestinian negotiators would ask for.
This will require a great deal of sacrifice but it will stop the critism from all but the true anti-semites (ie France)
If the Arab world leaders wishes to project the image that they don't hate jews and they just hate the occupation, they will have to shut-up or fine a new excuse to avoid addressing the needs of their own people. "Sure you live in poverty, but we hate Zionism" will no longer be an effective campaign slogan in Syria.
Isolating ourselves from jihadism may be the only way to avoid getting killed. Its sad, but it is the most viable option for the state of israel to survive.
I like "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition" quite a bit...
I have written quite a bit here about my unfolding ideas on the subject of the Iraq war, and my intention isn't to introduce it again in this thread. But after carefully laying out a series of rationales for waging the war or remaining, I realize I also object to many of the arguments against staying because I think they are products of hopelessness. It may be well placed, the people making the argument for withdrawal may have wisdom which far exceeds my own.
Because of the grave nature of the subject matter we discuss here, the messages at this site will sometimes be angry, sometimes bleak, sometimes stern, and sometimes funny -- the subject -- Islam -- is also utterly preposterous... But the messages conveyed here will be heard most and understood by the widest possible audience if they come from hopefulness, and not despair...
"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!" captures it perfectly!
If Israel disappeared the world would be pluged into chaos, perhaps the greatest war for the survival of civilisation ever known before. It would literally be an epic battle, the likes of what is described in the Hindu epic "The Mahabharata" where the world had to take sides and there was nothing but carnage (kind of like a Gurkha night on the town).
"Israel is an ulcer in the stomach of the Islamic world"; something I would always say during my speeches in University whe I was president of a Hindu student organisation.
If Israel falls, then the battle will be taken to European homes and finally North America.
If someone thought I was totally out to lunch on this, they seriously need to read up on history and understand the threat we are facing by a very aggresive foe. Sun Tzu was wrote "Know yourself and know your enemy".
Not all Muslims are bad, but when they are, BOY, are they evil. And the sad part is that most are simply bad, since no Islamic country is tolerant or has a great human rights record and yet Muslims claim that Islam is peace, well if it is how come all Islamic countries are messed up. Sorry, I'd rather have the West and India (and my lovely Nepal) left out of the Islamic world vision. When I meet a muslim who admits the truth, he or she is afraid to voice it, since other muslims will crush them as a traitor.
So if Israel falls then India would fall next since they would be able to direct all efforts at India and Nepal, finally wiping out the last stand of the oldest living civilisation in the world. The western media always fails to declare that Osama and the Pussycats had declared several times that they are waging a Jihad against Israel, America and India. If India falls, all the efforts of Islam will drive towards Israel. The two "I" countires on either side are the great heartbreaks of Islam (which happens to also start in "I", sort of looks like something weird, like a epic of "I"s...Anyways...)
If Israel falls the world we can read these historical atrocities as current news headlines:
Islamic imperialism knew no code of honor. The only rule of war they observed without fail was to fall down the helpless civil population after a decisive victory had been won on the battlefield. They sacked and burnt down villages and towns after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The cows, the Brahmins and Buddhist Bhikshus invited their special attention in a mass murder of non-combatants. Their temples and shrines were their special targets in an orgy of pillage and destruction. Those that they did not kill, they captured and sold as slaves. The scene was described by Kanhadde Prabandha (1456 A.D) in the following words: "The conquering army burnt villages, devastated the land, plundered people's wealth, took Brahmins and children and women of all classes captive, flogged with thongs of raw hide, carried a moving prison with it, and converted the prisoners into obsequious Turks."
(source: Story of Islamic Imperialism in India - By Sita Ram Goel ASIN 8185990239 p. 41-42).
Will Durant (1885-1981) the well-known American historian says in the book The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage page 459:
"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within." Almost all the Muslims of South Asia are descendants of weaker elements of the population who had succumbed to forcible Islamic conversion."
"The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history". The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride of the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period. "
(source: The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage - By Will Durant page 459).
Hindu Kush Mountains - " Slaughter of the Hindus "
Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists have also suffered a terrible holocaust, probably without parallel in human history. Take the Hindu Kush for instance, probably one of the biggest genocides of Hindus. There is practically no serious research ever done about it and no mention in history books. Yet the name Hindu Kush appears many times in the writings of Muslim chroniclers in 1333 AD. Ibn Battutah, the medieval Berber traveller, said the name meant 'Hindu Killer,' a meaning still given by Afghan mountain dwellers. Unlike the Jewish holocaust, the exact toll of the Hindu genocide suggested by the name Hindu Kush is not available. 'However,' writes Hindu Kush specialist Srinandan Vyas, 'the number is easily likely to be in millions.'
Afghanistan was a full part of the Hindu cradle up till the year 1000, and in political unity with India until Nadir Shah separated it in the 18th century. The mountain range in Eastern Afghanistan where the native Hindus were slaughtered, is still called the Hindu Kush (Persian: "Hindu Slaughter").
(Note: To the Hindus, this mountain range was known as Paariyaatra Parvat. But when the last Hindu king of Kabul was killed Muslims ruled this land and then called these mountains the Hindu Kush -- "Slaughter of the Hindus" ).
It is significant that one of the very few place-names on earth that reminds us not of the victory of the winners but rather of the slaughter of the losers, concerns a genocide of Hindus by the Muslims.
A few known historical figures can be used to justify this estimate. The Encyclopaedia Britannica recalls that in December 1398 AD, Taimurlane ordered the execution of at least 50,000 captives before the battle for Delhi; likewise, the number of captives butchered by Taimurlane's army was about 100,000.
The Britannica again mentions that Mughal emperor Akbar ordered the massacre of about 30,000 captured Rajput Hindus on February 24, 1568 AD, after the battle for Chitod, a number confirmed by Abul Fazl, Akbar's court historian. Afghan historian Khondamir notes that during one of the many repeated invasions on the city of Herat in western Afghanistan, which used to be part of the Hindu Shahiya kingdoms '1,500,000 residents perished.' 'Thus, 'it is evident that the mountain range was named as Hindu Kush as a reminder to the future Hindu generations of the slaughter and slavery of Hindus during the Moslem conquests.'
(source: Where's India's holocaust museum? - By Francois Gautier - rediff.com)
Negationism and the Muslim Conquests - by Francois Gautier
"Muslims invaders did record with glee their genocide on Hindus, because they felt all along that they were doing their duty; that killing, plundering, enslaving and razing temples was the work of God, Mohammed. Indeed, whether it was Mahmud of Ghazni (997-1030), who was no barbarian, although a Turk, and patronised art and literature, would recite a verse of the Koran every night after having razed temples and killed his quota of unbelievers; or Firuz Shah Tughlak (1351-1388) who personally confirms that the destruction of Pagan temples was done out of piety and writes: "on the day of a Hindu festival, I went there myself, ordered the executions of all the leaders AND PRACTITIONERS of his abomination; I destroyed their idols temples and built mosques in their places".
(source: Negationism and the Muslim Conquests - by Francois Gautier).
Louis-Frederic, French Indologist, author of L'lnde de l'Islam, frequently mentions forced conversions, massacres and temple demolitions. On pages 42-49 he writes:
“Mohammed Ghori had the Hindu temples of Ajmer demolished and ordered the construction of mosques and Quran schools on their runins…He plundered Kanauj and Kashi and destroyed their temples.” While his generals “destroyed in passing the remaining Buddhist communities of Bihar and destroyed the universities of Nalanda.”
Bakhtiar Khilji “established a Muslim capital in Lakhanauti (Gaur) on the Ganga and destroyed, in 1197, its basalt temples. In Odantpuri, in 1202, he massacred two thousand Buddhist monks. “
Meanwhile, back in Delhi: “This Quwwat-ul-Islam (Might of Islam) was built in a hurry using the debris, chiefly sculpted pillars, of twenty-seven dismantled Hindu temples.” Thirty years later, “Iltutmish did not forget that he was a Muslim conqueror. He showed himself to be very pious, never forgetting to do his five devotional daily….He likewise showed himself totally intolerant vis-à-vis the Hindus who refused to convert, destroying their temples and annihilating Brahmin communities.”
However, in India a literature has developed which denies, minimizes or white-washes this history.
(source: Decolonizing the Hindu Mind - By Koenraad Elst p. 328).
However, what really pisses them off is that Jews, Hindus and all others still survived even after they tried to eradicate us. All this means is that as warriors, Muslims are pathetic.
-Cheers
Ayo Gorkhali!
Yes, what would Israel do if Iran was to nuke Israel with the weapons that it is designing with invaluable assistance from Pakistan?
When things start to get tense, as they will in the coming years, the Israeli politicians need to start speaking out on TV thus, "We will respond with nuclear weapons, if Iran dares to attack us with any of their Pakistani inspired weapons..."
Oh yes Pakistan, you cannot escape the burning fires of hell, if nuclear war breaks out, then you too will surely be totally nuked. After all, you gave all the know-how to Iran.
And what about Russia, who assisted them with nuclear know-how? What of Saudi Arabia and their "religion of peace"? And what about those countries who dithered in the UN, whilst Iran repeatedly spat in their face, whilst continuing to build nuclear weapons?
IF Israel was to disappear horribly, then why not take out numerous other arsehole countries at the same time.
First of all, give it a rest with that Gaza thing. The whole settlement movement was a mistake and it created a logistical nightmare. I’ve got friends who got wounded in Gaza; I’ve got friends who died there, and what for? With those settlements Israel was like an open hand – you could break it finger by finger. It’s better this way.
As for a “world without Israel”… Well, we will indeed fall or tear ourselves apart if the rest of the world won’t wake up. Although it looks like Europe will fall first.
"The whole settlement movement was a mistake..."
-- from a poster above
Which "settlement movement"? Going back how far? Trumpeldor's Tel Hai -- was that "settlement" a mistake? The "settlements" on which Jews settled, from roughly 1882 to 1948, on lands either bought from Arab landowners, or on "waste and state lands," and after 1948, on the territory which was retained from that which had been set aside by the League of Nations precisely for the sole purpose of a Jewish National Home. Legally, historically, morally, what distinguishes the "settlements" on land which was part of that Mandatory territory, but was lost to the Arabs during the 1948 war, and repossessed after the 1967 war?
If you wish to make an argument based on an appeal to practicality, while admitting that Israel has a perfect legal, historic, and moral claim to the lands it won in 1967, do so. But the airy dismissal of the "settler movement" does not cut the mustard. Not in Jerusalem, not in the "West Bank" (a phrase that demands self-querying quotation marks), and not in Gaza. A case can be made that Gaza wasted resources. A case can be made that uprooting those Jewish villagers from their homes, some of which predated the state of Israel, in what was and remains the classic invasion route, has done more to demoralize the Israelis, and managed to whet, not sate, Arab appetites, as to have been a mistake. The main mistake is in always assuming that the Arabs and Muslims will, in the long run, come to their senses, and behave like Western, non-Muslim people -- that is, understand, and accept, the very notion of compromise.
The canonical texts, which form the basis of Muslim existence, and which affect even those who are unobservant, creating the atmospherics in which even those unobservant Muslims -- or Arab islamochristians -- are raised and which they breathe in, day by malevolent day, are not going to be changed. The entire history of Islam teaches a few lessons. Shouldn't every Israeli, before making life-and-death decisions, study and thoroughly assimilate what is in those canonical texts, and what the history of Muslim conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims offers, for the story, over 1350 years, is not terribly varied but remarkably similar, from Spain to East Asia. Quite somethiing. And quite something that so many, in Israel and outside Israel, simply will not take the trouble to learn about. Laziness? Certainly. Fear of what they might find out, and what that might mean? Of course.
Well, you know what they say about arguing on the Internet....
IDF spokesman Avi Lipkin years ago published the Israeli governments plans to avoid at any cost the extinction of the Jewish state.
Instead of attacking Labor and Likud alike and becoming hysterical and demanding answers, it might be more beneficial to research what the IDF has planned for any and all contingencies. If Isreal was truly a confused bunch of politicos quickly ready to surrender to internal or external Muslim populations, then some critics would be justified in condeming Sharon and Peres. Israel isn't going anywhere.
I am a conservative Jew and I've watched Israeli politics for years. They have every flavor of politician from hardcore communist, orthodox religious and far right wing. When truly facing a serious threat, they always meet the problem head-on.
Israel isn't going anywhere. The great majority of Muslims within Israel are glad to be Israeli. Internal security services watch the militant groups very closely. There is no need to panic or demand answers. See vicmord.com. Victor Mordechai is IDF and his information outlines clearly the established government position for ANY contingency Israel faces.
Israel has proved that civilization is possible in the Middle East. That alone has placed the onus of proof on you-know-who to demonstrate that civilization can *survive* in the Middle East.
SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT
"... to research what the IDF has planned for any and all contingencies."
-- posted by rafael699
I pray that it never happens, but feel that it will. And, if it does, I hope the response is as harsh as physically feasible. We may as well have it out with these people; things cannot go on as they are.
It's been a long time since Banu Qurayza, and the Jews were mighty forgiving. Maybe too forgiving. It could be that the Jews will lead our way out of this nightmare. Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians... all of us will need a way out, and probably sooner than later.
Hugh, there's a great scene in Oliver Stone's mockumentary about Israel and the 'West Bank' where Stone interviews Bibi and an explosion rocks in the background. Bibi leaps to the window and looks into the distance. Stone asks, "which settlement was that?" Bibi says, "the settlement known as Jerusalem."
I think you underestimate Arik. Gaza was a cesspool with a Arab to Jew ratio of over 100-1 . . . maybe 150-1. Arik's posture to date has been that Israel should define and defend defensable borders. Gaza and parts of the West Bank fall into the rubric of what he sees as indefensable boundries. You can argue with what those boundries should be, but I don't think Arik is a fool. He is under no illusions about Abbas. Abbas seems like he's mellowed and is 'moderate', but also useless with no controll over his minions. Sharon knows this. I think the wall is part of this strategy and the next step may be to pull back behind the fortress and declare via anexing the land behind the boundry as Israel . . . leaving Abbas only to negotiate with himself.
Many think Sharon has been mistaken about the net effect of many things. Uzi Landau, Yuval Steinitz, Benjamin Netanyahu, Caroline Glick, and many many others, think that the dismantlement not of "settlements" (why even use that loaded word? I'm not going to.) but of Jewish villages on land in Gaza to which Israel has a legal, historic, and moral claim superior to that of anyone else, was folly. There are those who want to believe, with desperate earnestness, that things are for the best, that the Israelis know exactly what they are doing, that Sharon because he was a brave soldier is therefore a political genius.
As a non-believer in providential intervention, I would prefer a lot less assumption that everything is okay or will be okay, and a lot more understanding of what whets, and what sates, and what is the only thing that prevents Muslim aggression in the end -- Darura, the principle the necessity, of being forced to yield to an overwhelmingly more powerful and resolute enemy, determined to inflict far greater damage on the Muslims than they can inflict. But the leaders of Iran, for example, or some of them, are quite willing, in order to wipe out Israel, to absorb nuclear retaliation by Israel against Iran, and have said so, and the Israelis must assume they mean it, and act on that assumption.
And when demographic conquest is endlessly discussed by the Arabs, what is the Israeli response? To cut off bits of territory so that there will be fewer Arabs to worry about. They keep forgetting that this needs to be repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and all the while any tiny strategic depth that they may once have possessed is lost. What happens if Israel is invaded by completely conventional forces, from Jordan, from Gaza, from the north? Will the Israelis be able in time to use nuclear weapons? Will they be able to drop them on Arab armies, and local Arabs who have been waiting to strike, without also killing large numbers of Jews?
The earnest belief that the Israelis always know best, when the history of their negotations and various agreements with the Arabs has been one failure after another, from what the Arabs promised in those armistice agreements, to what Nasser promised to get the Israelis out of the Sinai, to the ludicrous Camp David Accords with Saint Sadat, to the Oslo Accords with not-so-saintly Arafat, and now, even without a Treaty-of-al-Hudaibiyya farce, Sharon has managed to brilliantly give away a good deal for nothing in return. The only salvation will be if Gaza descends into internecine warfare that goes on forever, a chaos that reminds the world of what the so-called "Paletinian" cause and people are all about. But will it happen? Will the Israelis have the sense to let it happen, or will they collaborate with teh Americans in making Gaza livable, and more?