The despicable cartoon above comes from a Christmas card available from War On Want, a Leftist group that describes itself as fighting poverty "in developing countries in partnership and solidarity with people affected by globalisation. We campaign for workers' rights and against the root causes of global poverty, inequality and injustice." (Thanks to Jerusalem Posts.)
Root causes. Sure. Except for the jihad ideology, which is not on these people's radar screen. The description of this card says:
The town of Bethlehem is effectively sealed off from the outside world by Israel’s Separation Wall and a state-of-the-art military checkpoint, exacerbating the devastation to the life and economy of its Palestinian inhabitants after years of violence.An end to violence in the Middle East means constructing bridges, not walls.
My colleague and friend Hugh Fitzgerald, Jihad Watch Board Vice President, said it best this morning in connection with another example of this particular stupidity:
"What would happen if the Virgin Mary came to Bethlehem today?" -- remark by a local "Palestinian" Arab in the article aboveThat's easy.
Mary, Joseph, and the baby they are about to have are all, of course, Jewish. And if the Virgin Mary (presumably with Joseph) were to arrive in Bethlehem today, and arrived without the IDF around them, in a place now controlled by the kind of Palestinian Muslim Arabs who are there now, they would be killed on the spot.
Someone among the killers would think to cut the baby out of Mary, and raise him, the baby Jesus, as a Palestinian Arab and good Muslim. And come to think of it, that is exactly what Islam does when it appropriates, and changes, the Jesus of Christianity for the Jesus of Islam, about which Karen Armstrong is such an enthusiast.
That's what would happen if a Jewish girl, the Virgin Mary, arrived nine months pregnant, and with labor pains beginning, anywhere that "Palestinian Arabs" were free to do what they do to any Israeli who happens to wander or stumble or arrive, unprotected, in their midst today. And if you need evidence for that, start with any number of Israeli hitchhikers picked up and murdered, or those two Israeli boys beaten to death in a cave, or those two Israeli reservists who took a wrong turn into Ramallah and were lynched, as those who killed them and gouged out their eyes held up their bloody hands to a crowd below hysterical with its own happiness and hate, or those four little Jewish girls sitting in their car, methodically shot to death, one by one, by one more brave hero -- hailed as a hero, held up as a model -- of the "Palestinian resistance."
Ah yes why even bother with this Robert? Its a transnational leftist organization. There is not even a remote possibility of debate with the peacenik revolutionary types.
Tushar Saxena,
You're right that there is not a remote possibility of debate with peacenik revolutionary types and poseurs.
Nevertheless, it is instructive, and important, that their idiocy is publicly noted. For such documentation and comment, I thank all JW/DW posters and commenters, very much.
I hope all people of good will, who celebrate Christmas, have a very merry Christmas Day. And that all people of good will, who don't celebrate Christmas, have an excellent day.
The sanctimonious half-witted twit author of this cartoon, P. J. Polyp, of the "New Internationalist" magazine, is clearly not included in my above wishes.
Folks, nothing suprises me anymore. Another sad sign of the times.
A Blessed Merry Christmas.
"fighting poverty "in developing countries in partnership and solidarity with people affected by globalisation."
Well that would mean fighting Islamic expansion, since its hard to think of another form of globalization which has factually resulted in so much actual poverty.
"An end to violence in the Middle East means constructing bridges, not walls."
No. An end to violence in the ME means a population transfer of "Palestinians" back into Jordan and other Arab lands, something which should have been done decades ago. It's those who refuse to see that this is the only solution to actually end the violence for good who are, in the end, contributing to the violence, one way or another.
Last year this time, during my final Christmas as a resident of the UK, I watched one of those BBC docudramas about the life and times of Jesus, retracing his steps through the Holy Land. The beautiful blonde host had just finished narrating the story (concurrent with a dramatic recreation) of the Roman soldiers arresting Jesus and taking him away for interrogation, torture, and ultimate crucifixion. In the scene immediately following, we see modern Jerusalem, Israeli soldiers on patrol -- fully armed -- and the narrator notes, "today, the old city is once again occupied and one must wonder, what if Jesus were here today?"
We have come full circle: in the eyes of Western leftists, Jesus was a Palestinian Arab and the Jews are the occupying Roman legions.
What a toxic brew Islamic historical revisionism, Arab propaganda, leftist anti-Semitism, and modern media has wrought.
850 entries on google for Palestine on their site.
4 for Darfur. The Darfur crisis is probably a "détail de l'histoire" (a detail of history) as Le Pen liked to state about the Sho'ah.
http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&q=palestine+site%3Awaronwant.org&btnG=Rechercher&meta=
http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&q=darfur+site%3Awaronwant.org&btnG=Recherche+Google&meta=
So much for the fond hopes that some here have of the Leftists joining anti-Jihadists against Jihadi supremacists - despite the misogynic, homophobic, animal-cruel, anti-environmental stances of these incidental allies of the Left.
About fifteen minutes ago I happened to tune in the BBC World Service. I thought there might be something, perhaps King's College Choir, or the aptly-named Ranieri Cantalamessa in Rome, or perhaps someone musing on the fate of Christians in Iraq, other than the moral idiot, and historical nitwit, the current Archbishop of Canterbury.
But that would have been a different BBC. This BBC, the BBC of John Simpson, and Judy Swallow, and Robin Lustig, and Barbara Plett of the ready tear for Arafat, is a very different BBC from that of Huw Weldon. And it did lived up to my grim expectations. It did not disappoint.
For on the air was someone telling mournfully about "the Wall" (and of course I knew which wall he was talking about, not the Wall of John Hersey, not the Great Wall of China, not the wall being built by Saudi Arabia for many hundreds of miles right through the desert, though no one threatens Saudi Arabia or its inhabitants with their total destruction, nor any other wall being built or being contemplated). No, this "wall" was the wall being built, as a modest measure forced upon them out of desperation out of ways to prevent homicide bombers from easily entering their cities, to there set themselves off on busses, in restaurants, at Passover celebrations. And this "wall" the smooth speaker said, was built right through the usual "uprooted and destroyed" olive groves -- a staple of "Palestinian" propaganda, those "uprooted olive groves," and so important to their propaganda machine that they have been caught uprooting their own olive trees, for the world press to come and cover and bewail.
There was not a hint in this lachrymose tale by this teller of tales of any indication as to why the Israelis might have felt it necessary to build such a wall, and not a hint of the endless terrorism to which Israel's Jews have been subject, a terrorism that only now, the rest of the Infidel world is getting a small taste, and which the people of England will be getting a larger and larger taste. There was not a hint as to whether or not this wall -- one built, one should note, through the territory to which Israel has a very large historic, legal, and moral claim, and the drawback of this wall is that it appears to lessen this claim, appears to recognize, as there is no need to, the armistice lines of 1948 rather than those of June 1967 as the ones that must prevail.
And the speaker went on, went on about the travails of the Christians of Bethlehem, with no hint of understanding that the Christian population of Bethlehem, some 80% of the total in 1948, has gone down, and down, not when under Israel's control, but when it has been under the control of the Arabs, and never has the situation been more grave than now, under the "Palestinian Authority." Local Christians seldom speak out. They are fearful, and the Christian Arab strategy, long ago internalized, has been to never complain, and always to parrot the Muslim line, to do the bidding of the Muslims, to be good "Palestinians" always, and therefore always, even when it is absurd and seen by all sensible people to be absurd, to blame -- with no evidence and no logic -- the Israelis, that is, the Jews. One would have to ignore the entire history of Islam, the history of conquest and subjugation of Christians in wide areas of the Middle East and North Africa, and what became of those Christians, and what are the rules, set down clearly in the Shari'a, for the treatment of Christians as dhimmis. The speaker apparently thought he did not have to take note of that. He was under no obligation, he must have thought, to have read or at least to know the contents of "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam" or a thousand other possible articles and books that formed the basis for that magisterial study of a major subject in world history. None of that mattered. He longed to go back, to go back one day to see the "Christians of Bethlehem" unoccupied (but they haven't been "occupied" -- even if one were to accept that meretricious and inaccurate word, which I do not -- for more than ten years, but have been under the total control of the "Palestinian Authority").
One longed to ask him what he thought would have happened to the "Christians of Bethlehem" if the Israelis had had the intelligence to insist on retaining Bethlehem as part of Israel, and never surrendered it to the "Palestinian Authority." He could look around at how the Arab Christians in what is Israel, Israel diminished, Israel dimidiated within the 1949 armistice lines (the Arabs refused to recognize them, as they were once offered, as permanent borders; that offer does not remain open forever, to be accepted whenever the Arabs feel like it), have fared.
Well, how have they fared?
Can they worship freely? Are they subject to harassment, persecution, even murder as the Christians of Gaza and the West Bank have been, despite their best efforts to further the "Palestinian" cause? Does this speaker know about this? Does he think it relevant to his teary tale?
And who was this speaker, anyway? I waited to the end, enduring the nonsense of it all just to find out. It turned out to be William Dalrymple. Ah, of course. William Dalrymple, described here long ago, quite accurately, as an up-market Barbara Cartland, whose tales of trans-racial passion at the Mughal Court, or at this or that princely court in the time of the Mughals, has it all: star-crosseed lovers, and of course the Splendor That Was India, or rather the India of the Muslim rulers who lived off of their Hindu subjects, the subjects who were killed by the Muslims in numbers without any historical parallel (the historian K. S. Lal, and others, estimate that 60-70 million Hindus were killed by the Muslim conquerors and masters). Now a love of luxe, and of luxe combined with heaving breasts, is the kind of thing that the Barbara-Cartlands of this world, even the plausible sort who put in a bit more history and a little less of the Romance-novelette lord or duke or Arab prince (see "The Sheik"), who picks up the girl, in her swoon, at the very end (the promise of sex has always been just beyond what Nabokov calls "the skyline of the page") -- that is William Dalrymple. He's as vulgar and stupid as they come, behind the plummy voice and the pretense of being a historian.
And what is funniest about the Dalrymples and their admirers is that these are the same people who find nothing wrong with the late Edward Said's complaint about Jane Austen in Mansfield Park, the complaint that she does not specify that a main character lives off his revenues from his West Indian plantation, a plantation with slaves.
But here is Dalrymple, singing the tale of Mughal India, and its luxe and volupte if not its calme, all of it based on the ruthless enslavement and oppression of the Hindu masses by their cruel (with a few exceptions, such as syncretistic Akbar, his memory revered by Hindus for his temporarily lifting the Jizyah, and his memmory despised by the Muslims, for his softness toward Hindus) Muslim masters.
If anyone should be complained about, it is not that subtle miniaturist Jane Austen, who after all was not singing the praises of slaveowning in the West Indies, whereas William Dalrymple has written endlessly about, made his heaving-breast passionate high-toned nonsense out of, nothing but a slave-state.
With his marks -- so inapposite, and yet so typical of the current BBC with its current management and current personnel -- on the hideous Israelis and the woes of the "Palestinian" Christians. William Dalrymple simply showed he was all of a piece. His love-affair with the Muslims of India, his love affair with the Muslim Arabs, his complete indifference to the plight of the Jews in Israel trying, desperately, simply to defend themselves against terrorists and doing the absolute minimum they can (what does Dalrymple think any other country -- Great Britain for example -- would do if it faced the same kind of endless torment and threats and attempts on the lives of its citizens and of the state, that Israel does as it confronts what it has so far failed to name, and even to recognize, as a Lesser Jihad), go together.
He, William Dalrymple, singer of The Wonder of Mughal India, so far coheres. He coheres, and he nauseates.
http://www.waronwant.org/Council+of+Management+4114.twl
Martin Hughes, Vice Chairperson
Martin worked for War on Want from 1988 until 1994, eventually becoming deputy chief executive. He runs a public relations business in London and is also a board member of Medical Aid for Palestinians.
Sandy Boyle
Sandy is Deputy General Secretary of the banking union, UNIFI. He is President of the STUC, President of Union Network International's Europe Finance Section and a Member of its Europe and World Executives. He is also Chair of the Alliance for Finance, Member of the CAC and a UK Member of the EU Economic and Social Committee. He is a member of Action for Southern Africa’s (ACTSA) Scottish Committee and of Scottish Friends of Palestine.
James O'Nions
James is an anti-corporate activist, a founding member of Iraq Occupation Focus, and writes on global justice issues for Red Pepper magazine.
Yasmin Khan
Yasmin is a anti-racist and social justice campaigner in the labour movement in the uk and the global justice movement. Her recent work has focussed on highlighting the human rights implications of the role of corporations in occupied Iraq.
http://www.waronwant.org/Palestine+Campaign+10004.twl
As Israel’s principal trading partner, many in the international community have called on the European Union to suspend the trading preferences which Israel enjoys as a result of the EU-Israel Association Agreement
http://www.waronwant.org/?lid=10004
if the Virgin Mary and her husband were to arrive in Bethlehem today, Mary would see her husband tortured. And castrated before she was gang raped to death by Arabs in name of how so-called Palestinian people. All because they are Jewish, and these cowardly animalswould be hailed as heroes, and as someone to be admired, and if our Lord Jesus was kept out of his mother's womb. No doubt you'd be raised as a good little suicide bomber as it seems most Arabs in the Middle East cannot wait to meet Satan a.k.a. Allah. Not realizing probably the virgins they are promised in Paradise are themselves being sodomized by demons
The archbishop of Canterbury seems to be a serious contender for the Sheik Yer'mami 'Azzhole of the month' award. If you can think of anybody who is worse please nominate him/her now, so we can do it by popular vote...
For the moment (and for some time to come) we still have Peanut Khadr who outdid everyone else by a country-mile...
http://sheikyermami.com/2006/12/20/abu-hamza/
http://sheikyermami.com/2006/12/04/words-of-sir-winston/
Have you noticed how the description "separation wall" is creeping into the vernacular just as the words "Palestinian" and "occupation" have became accepted as common usage to describe a non existent people and national state that Israel is supposedly occupying? Of course "separation" is a direct translation of "apartheid", something that probably escapes the notice of those who use it, but a very useful tool of indoctrinating people into accepting the false accusation that Israel is akin to Apartheid South Africa.
This is slow subliminal indoctrination that gives credence to the replacement theology and history being spread by Islamicists.
See this video clip:
http://www.waronwant.org/Videos+12493.twl
So the end of 2006 is almost upon us. One thing we do know about 2006 is that it has become a year of craven cowardice and kowtowing towards our Islamic enemies. We have had bad years before, but none have seemed as bad as the year just ending, and even more foreboding, 2007 has all the makings of an even worse year, especially with Pelosi’s new broom sweeping in come mid-January.
2006 was a year when the Jihadis exposed us in the West for what we are, and for what ails us. It was proved beyond all doubt that we have straw men and women for leaders and wannabe leaders, and a wimpish population that would rather see our own harmed than any enemy of ours, however mortal it may be. Suppose you walked through a Victorian cemetery, and thought about what those interred there, say 125 years ago, would make of our world if they could come back to life for just one month, and see it. Whilst they’d marvel at our technological advances, they’d also cringe at our cravenness in the face of the Jihadis. They lived in an era where we put our own first, and had no squeamishness about killing our sworn enemies in droves. They took pride in our might and our ability to make it count. They would have felt ashamed of our PC-induced defeatism and would certainly have known how to deal with the Galloways and Jihadis of this world.
Few events of 2006 left a nastier taste in the mouth than the Israel versus Hizbollah (and the dysfunctional Left, Human Rights Watch, the Western MSM, certain church leaders and Amnesty International) struggle. Because the Israelis dared to try to defend themselves against a 4,000-rocket barrage, the response of the entire West was to show cravenness way beyond anything seen at Munich towards these terrorists, and a Jew-hatred worthy of Hitler’s Cabinet. No president since Carter has fallen farther or faster in such a short time as Bush, who along with Condoleeza Rice, urged a ‘proportionate’ response in the face of this onslaught. A chance to destroy a sworn terrorist enemy passed us by, thanks to this supreme act of folly, and now as we leave 2006, we are left grovelling supinely at the feet of an emboldened Syria and an Iran on the verge of going nuclear, firmly in hoc to the tyrants who govern them, and proved Bin Laden’s assessment of the West to be true – that we are the weak horse and we don’t have the staying power. What a contrast to 2001 when it looked as if we were about to start taking the fight against the civilization-destroying terrorists seriously. But we didn’t reckon with the destructive terrorist-loving Left, the human rights activists, or the inadequacies of our own politicians. Our submission to the howling and baying mobs of placard-wielding Muslims with their crude beheading messages early in the year over a few cartoons was a foreboding harbinger of things to come, and it has been depressingly downhill from there.
All in all, this leaves little to be optimistic about in the New Year.
Merry Christmas once again. Despite the setbacks of 2006 and sadly there were many setbacks I see a lot more hope for 2007. I see the temper-tamtron of November 2006 not long lasting. What is called "buyers regret " will in 2007 begin to set in and like a person who has eaten too much, there will be a great big throw-up by 2008 after seeing what this change in direction has done.
Also I have noticed more people are saying Merry Christmas and less Happy Holidays, having take note of the famous Christmas wars of 2005. Also in the USA, the nation as a whole has become more center-right. Also the Christian faith is making, even with its struggles to survive in many parts of the world, is becoming strong in the USA once again because of the growing hunger for what is truly much more important and meaningful. Even at both Christmas and Easter, the churches become very busy because people want to hear the good news of hope. Also the very attacks on the Christian faith is a sign of a dying radical liberism and the true weakness of it, not the Christian faith itself. The strength of its holy truths eternel message is what is so needed today. This is why the traditional churches have been getting stronger.
Here is an URL about the Christian faith's strength despite it dealing with attacks. It is writen by a Toronto newspaper writer.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Coren_Michael/2006/12/23/2950839-sun.html
The only way to end the Middle Eastern violence is to boycott all Middle Eastern produce, especially the oil. Without that constant stream of money, they can't fund the jihad. It's really quite simple, but the politicians won't do it, because they believe that all cultures are equal to our own. Unfortunately for them, that is not true and never has been. How can they judge a culture which has no regard for human rights or human life as being equal to cultures which do repsect the rights and lives of others? As a result of the fundamental flaw in their reasoning, the whole world will pay a heavy price for their mistake.
War on want has always been a subversive organisation, it was actually fronted by George Galloway from 83 - 87 the "charity" was investigated dating that time for ahem, " accounting irregularities from 1985 to 1989, but little evidence that money was used for non-charitable purposes. Mr Galloway had been general secretary for the first three of those years. The commission said responsibility lay largely with auditors and did not single out individuals for blame." Yes right, The cream had gone but Mcavity wasn't there, Miaow!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway
Sharon writes:
Yes, I've noticed. All my life there has been a long but definite path by which propaganda and even disinformation originated by America's enemies ends up eventually becoming accepted as truth by the Western Left. During the Cold War, it worked like this:
The Soviet KGB would concoct some lie (like J. Edgar Hoover was a cross-dressing homosexual or the CIA had JFK assassinated). Then they would feed this stuff out to radical Leftists whom no one knew at the time were on the KGB's payroll. From there it would get picked up by other, more sincere radical Leftists, and then by ultra-liberals, and so on, till it became accepted throughout the Left as truth. (Most of the Left still won't acknowledge that the allegations of Hoover's alleged sexual proclivities have been revealed by former KGB officers to have originated from their disinformation campaign against the FBI.)
Now that same transmission channel is being used again, this time activated by the Islamists of HAMAS and Hezbollah, by Saddam's old government and by Iran's existing government. With Muslim stringers attached to the news wire services taking the role of Walter Duranty. And with men like Ramsey Clark and George Galloway assuming the roles of Philip Agee and William Blum.
During the Cold War, the U.S. State Department and U.S. Information Agency used to try to refute Soviet disinformation. For whatever reason, they have been unable or unwilling to do the same with Islamist-spread disinformation today. Only the Internet, the bloggers and websites, exist to try to refute Islamist disinformation before it becomes accepted by the West as gospel truth.
Oh a cartoon.....lets riot!
Merry Christmas!
In keeping with Christmas,in case you haven't seen this- most amusing:
Physics of Santa and his reindeer
http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/physics.asp
Rebuttals
http://web.archive.org/web/20041113092029/http://home.uchicago.edu/~rascalzo/arch/palace/library/humor-tech/santa-physics.html
Hugh- Thank you for this analysis.
'Caroline' wrote:
'An end to violence in the ME means a population transfer of "Palestinians" back into Jordan and other Arab lands, something which should have been done decades ago.'
Hugh, one of your followers has expressed what seems to be the official 'Jihad Watch' position on Palestine in a nutshell. You do believe in ethnic cleansing, i.e. racism and apartheid?
Is it possible for an anti-jihad agenda to be liberated from this right-wing filth?
The comment above is misplaced. No one here has "followers." Some find that they agree with one person or another on this or that matter. End of story.
As to the hysterical and wrong-headed business of "right-wing filth" -- that requires not discussion but simply dismissal. It is not illegitimate to discuss demographic conquest as an instrument of Jihad, both over the course of Islam's 1350-year history, and especially in modern times, when outright military conquest of the advanced West is not possible, but settlement within those borders which Muslims themselves have been taught to regard as enemy lines, the lines demarcating Dar al-Harb, is something that must be considered, and suggeestions made for intelligently dealing with it.
Populations have been transferred after or during all kinds of conflicts. The millions of Greeks and Turks, the tens of millions of Muslims and Hindus, are only two obvious examples of this. For securiity reasons the Czechs expelled 3 million ethnic Germans in 1946; 9 million other Germans were expelled from Poland, Hungary, and other lands. The Arab countries have been the most enthusiastic practitioners of expulsion of populatons they have deemed dangerous: the Saudis overnight once expelled nearly a million Yemenis; Morocco has expelled Algerians and vice-versa; Libya has expelled "Palestinians" and Egyptians; Kuwait after the Gulf War expelled 400,000 "Palestinians"; Lebanon's government would, if it could, expel the nearly one million Syrians who have come to work in Lebanon; and so on.
Before dismissing any discussion of this as "right-wing filth" why not calmly look at the historical record, and begin with Benes and Masaryk in that most advanced and tolerant of Central European states, Czechoslovakia, which took actions that no one save for revanchist Germans have ever found objectionable, or even remarkable.
Charles Martel:
So last Christmas was your last one as a resident of the UK?
Congratulations on getting out before this country (and continent) are engulfed by the coming apocalypse.
OK. If I take out the misplaced word 'follower' and the hysterical word 'filth', the point I made remains intact.
I'm not convinced that using the (justified) Czech expulsion of Germans in 1946 to excuse ethnic cleansing in general is a morally tenable position. Of course, you're not arguing for ethnic cleansing in general, but for 'security reasons'. However, the latter can always be, and usually is, cited by the 'ethnic cleansers' to justify what they are doing (as in Yugoslavia throughout the 'nineties). The point is that there shouldn't be an insistence on ethnically pure (or even ethnically based for that matter) states.
The phrase "ethnic cleansing" is loaded, and you know it.
Would you prefer the phrase "expulsion on the basis of ethnicity"?
Certainly not in the case we are discussing. For here there is no question of ethnicity, but of an ideology, an ideology that is dangerous because it teaches its adherents to divide the world between themselves, the Believers, and all others, teaches them further that they have a duty -- not all accept that duty, but the fact of that duty remains -- to protect and to spread Islam, and to offer loyalty to Islam and to fellow Believers and to no one else. And that includes those who, while they may appear to share a single citizenship, are by virtue of being Unbelievers, Infidels, entitled to no loyalty, nor does the Infidel nation-state deserve the loyalty of a faithful Muslim. What in god's name does that have to do with "ethnicity"?
I was responding to a call by a commenter here to expel 'Arabs', not just the Jihadists (the nature of whose vile ideology I am entirely in agreement with you on)among them. 'Arab' is an ethnicity, not an ideology.
But if you were "responding to call by a commenter" why did you direct your remarks to me, by calling such a person, inaccurately, my "follower" and then implicating me in that call?
But let's take head on the use of that word "Arab" and see if we can figure out what that commenter may have meant. If the word "Arab" is meant as a substitute for all those who subscribe to the ideology of Islam, because it has been observed that a number of "Palestinian" non-Muslims in fact turn out to be islamochristians who, because of their need to not offend, and curry favor with, circumambient Muslim Arabs with whom they have had long and grim experience (whereas they will not suffer at all from expressing hostility, or even treasonous sentiments, toward the State of Israel, as they know perfectly well, and also because of the way in which the identity or sense of "Uruba" or "Arabness" reinforces, and is reinforced by, Islam, it is not wildly inaccurate, in the case of Israel's security, to use the word "Arab" as a counter for those who promote, support, defend, explain away, or participate in, the Lesser Jihad.
The world not only accepted but demanded that Gaza was ethnically cleansed of Jews to enable the people who claim to be Palestinian to have a Jewless state, be they called Arab or othewise. What's with this world that remains silent every time Jews are subject to enforced population movement, but screams ethnic cleansing when there is even a hint that murderers and killers of Jews might be expected to relocate just this once so that the Jews can live in peace in their ancient homeland without being forced yet again to hand it over to their enemies?
I am tired of people using this word "ethnic" or "ethnicity" to hide what is simply age old Judeophobia.
Interesting at Christmas to reflect on the differences between our attitudes towards Muslim Antisemitism and towards our own current western Antisemitism.
When the likes of European or American antisemites like Le Pen, David Duke or neo Nazis start mouthing off, there is huge condemnation from the leftists yet when it is Muslims who chant their antisemitic rants, the same leftist are absolutely silent.
But to normalize these rants from Arabs, they. the "liberals" often just Blame the "Middle east conflict" as if there was no such antisemitism before Israel was "Forced" upon the Umma - Because of course, Jews should never have been given the right to self determination.
The truth is that modern Islamic Antisemitism is rooted firmly in the incessant Nazi Arab propaganda of the late twenties and thirties. Most of these leftists are as silent about these roots as they are at condemning the filth that pours out of Arab countries.
The differences in the roots of antisemitism among Muslims and Christians is that they viewed the Jews in totally opposed ways.
To The Christians Jews were the Christ Killers and an immensely dangerous people.
To the Muslims the were a people conquered and enslaved by their beloved prophet.
Now you might rightly point out that most Christians today do not see Jews as Christ killers any more.
But although the root of Antisemitism is no longer there, the resulting prejudices and libels remain- in the same way that many do not realize the origins of Christmas but still celebrate it.
When a people are accused and found guilty of deicide , they acquire all the trappings of a supernatural power capable of the worst acts imaginable against their perceived enemies.
So the Christians unable and unwilling to murder all Jews because of compassionate aspects of their Faith, knew that they had to contain this evil, so that it would not take over the world. Thus the Jews who survived the pogroms, were tolerated providing they had no degree of influence on society and no right to self determination. These ideas became mainstream not only in Christian communities but in secular ones too.
when you hear modern day liberals state the it was a mistake to allow the formation of the state of Israel (and excusing it FALSELY as a result of the Holocaust), they do NOT in the same context mention all the other countries "created" as a result of the fall of the Ottoman empire. such as Jordan. Lebanon. Syria et al.
Why is that? Because they are not Jews, who are a dangerous people capable of the worst atrocities and not worthy of self Government. They have of course totally forgotten the ROOTS of this thinking since most are now atheists and non believers., but the awful "Christ Killer" prejudices have survived and taken an independent life of their own. ( remember the Christian Spaniards who burn candles behind closed curtains every friday night, but do not know why.)
That is why, in the west Jews are considered dangerous and "powerful" and members of cabals or Jewish lobbies who lust for power and wealth. Thus we see the Protocols, Mein kampf, Turner Diaries, and other books that strive to authenticate the terrible prejudices. When Jews defend themselves from murderous attack again we see the "dangerous" Jews guilty of overreaction, exactly what the Christkillers of old would have done if not "controlled".
Of Course this type of Jew hatred was never part of Islamic Antisemitism since the Muslims saw the Jews as a pathetic conquered race. How could a conquered race have such magic powers!
But now the Islamic word has readily absorbed and ingested the Nazi propaganda which it was fed during the 20s and 30s and the Protocols is the No1 best seller in the ME.
But what Cognitive dissonance from holding two different antisemitic outlooks at once!
On the one Hand, The Israelis are a worthless race of Conquered Dhimmies who should have fallen at the slightest push of Arab armies.
On the other hand they are powerful evil supremacists whose aims is to take over the entire world.
In regard to the discussions of ethnic cleansing and palestinian identity in several above postings, perhaps some knowledgeable contributor can shed some light on the following. I have read that the ancestors of most of today's Palestinians were Balkan moslems in the late 19th c. who were fleeing the newly-re-created Christian states of the Balkans, and that the Ottoman government re-settled them in Palestine. This would mean that they were relative newcomers to the area themselves, pre-dating the Jewish influx by only a generation or two. I don't know if this is true or not, but I wonder why, if true, they speak Arabic rather than Turkish. Any comments on this? Hugh? Robert? Anyone?
Populations have been transferred after or during all kinds of conflicts. The millions of Greeks and Turks, the tens of millions of Muslims and Hindus, are only two obvious examples of this. For securiity reasons the Czechs expelled 3 million ethnic Germans in 1946; 9 million other Germans were expelled from Poland, Hungary, and other lands. The Arab countries have been the most enthusiastic practitioners of expulsion of populatons they have deemed dangerous: the Saudis overnight once expelled nearly a million Yemenis; Morocco has expelled Algerians and vice-versa; Libya has expelled "Palestinians" and Egyptians; Kuwait after the Gulf War expelled 400,000 "Palestinians"; Lebanon's government would, if it could, expel the nearly one million Syrians who have come to work in Lebanon; and so on.
Hugh,
Thanks as always for a brilliant analysis.
Sharon: "The world not only accepted but demanded that Gaza was ethnically cleansed of Jews to enable the people who claim to be Palestinian to have a Jewless state, be they called Arab or othewise. What's with this world that remains silent every time Jews are subject to enforced population movement, but screams ethnic cleansing when there is even a hint that murderers and killers of Jews might be expected to relocate just this once so that the Jews can live in peace in their ancient homeland without being forced yet again to hand it over to their enemies?"
Hear. Hear! Added to the list of "ethnic cleansings" mentioned by Hugh above was also the expulsion of 1 million Jews from Arab lands. Why doesn't anyone argue for their right of return or even for monetary compensation for their lost lands and goods?
Schmegel: "The point is that there shouldn't be an insistence on ethnically pure (or even ethnically based for that matter) states."
There shouldn't have to be but unfortunately REALITY intervenes here. The 2 state solution already largely presumes that Jews will be cleansed out of the Palestinian state while Arab Muslims would be continued to stay within Israel. Presumably this is because the "Palestinians" cannot help themselves while the Jews supposedly can. What an unfair double standard.
And in any case I wasn't talking about ethnically cleansing Arab Muslims out of Israel. I was talking about transferring the Palestinians out of Gaza if they don't stop attacking Israel. At that point it's not even clear that one would be talking about ethnic cleansing. One would be talking about the right to self-defense against a people who are waging war against israel. If the violence doesn't stop, Israel doesn't need to rain down rockets on Gaza, they just need to reoccupy Gaza and then implement a policy of population transfer. Here is an article describing how to realistically accomplish it:
http://www.vdare.com/locke/palestinian_problem.htm
If they had done this decades ago, it would have been better for both Israel and for the "Palestinians" themselves. Furthermore, since so many Muslims seem to feel that the plight of the Muslims under "Occupation" is the cause of modern day terrorism, the real world outcome of Israel refusing to expel the Palestinians has been more violence on a global scale that is now affecting millions of others throughout the world as well. The squeemish refusal to realistically assess the situation has resulted in more violence in the long run. So contrary to your notion that advocating this approach is "right-wing filth", on the contrary, I see it as the only realistic way to actually end the conflict. Look at the state of Gaza now as they implode from within in all their hatred and culture of violence. How is continuing to nurture the fantasy that they could live peacefully alongside israel actually doing them any good as human beings? If the pali's on the west bank act up in response, then the same fate can await them. Will this piss off the Arab Muslim world? Possibly but it's hard to imagine how they could hate the jews even more than they already do. Also, we've seen plenty of evidence that the Arabs don't really give a hoot about the palestinians anyway. Israel should force them to demonstrate that they actually care about the palestinians by getting them to absorb them into their states. Then maintain Gaza as a buffer zone.
http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/physics.asp
RE: The above article
I remember seeing someting like that on Project Galactic Guide some six years ago, possibly a little longer. I was definitely in my late teens when I read it. It was hilarious the first time, thanks for the reminder.
The arrow is facing the wrong way... I had to fix it.
Sometimes The Picture Just Needs Some Adjustments To Be Correct
Anyone want to give odds on the likelihood of seeing cartoons of Ismael Haniyeh or some other Hamas luminary being depicted as a killer of children the way Ariel Sharon was, or will the murder of the three sons of a Fatah heavy-hitter be spun as the "collaterol damage" of Israel's "oppression" of the Palestinian struggle for an independent state?