Rice: Now is time for Palestinian state

This got me banned from a University of Chicago law school site. The topic was closed-minded academia:

"Academia should play an important role in a free society. It should be a clearing house for ideas and a place to explore subjects like “Compare and contrast Ahmedinejad’s vision of a worldwide Caliphate without Jews with the texts of the Qur’an and Hadith.” Our colleges should be seeking and spreading knowledge instead of seeking grants from Saudi princes. It didn’t take much courage for Bollinger to insult Ahmedinejad. It would take guts for a professor to challenge an ideology that leads people like Ahmedinejad, which is why you won’t see that happen."

"Instead we get Stanford University producing an American Secretary of State who compares Palestinian pressure groups with the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. Academia is failing the Country at a time when we really need it to do its job."

Comment up for 6 hours and then deleted. The University of Chicago.

Crescat scientia; vita excolatur- Let knowledge grow from more to more; and so be human life enriched.

...but subject to a certain time period," he added.

Ten years maximum perhaps?

Any efforts for the United States, Ms. Rice, Bush & Co. to dictate policy in the Middle East, and to redraw boundaries between Israel and the Arab state of Palestine, is bound to be frustrated by the hard fact that they do not respect us, nor any reason given why such a solution would be beneficial to all parties involved. This is the crux of the matter as to why negotiating with any Islamic state is a given dead end. Theirs is only one objective, that is Islam conquers the infidels, so whatever concessions are achieved are temporaty at best, and outright deceits mostly. There is no real hope for the Arab Palestinian state, except to scatter it to the four winds. Unfornutately, none of the other Arab states want them either. Who wants a plague of death?

Watch this one fall on it's ass, as the vampires like Hamas and Hizbullah et all froth from the mouth at any suggestion that the blood bank some how be conrolled.

This is a dream fantasy that will never occur, Abbas has absolutely no power at all, Hamas has treated Abbas with utter contempt,any declaration of a Palestinian state with coexistence with Israel will never happen, because they don't want it.

When will these people in the UN,US and now Olmert get it??

How often does some one have to hit you and spit at you and tell you that they want you dead, untill you get it?

Every one walks around like the rockets, the bunkers in Lebanon, Irans Nuclear march, Syrias bellicosing, and all the other day to day hostile activities against Israel don't exist.

Bring on Benjamin Netanyahu, he can see with both eyes the transparency of the Mulsim fanatics and the stupidity of the Americans and Europeans.

The status of 3 million Palestinians living a stateless existence in Gaza and the West Bank has got to be resolved, one way or another. There are essentially 4 options:

1) Incorporate them into Israel and grant them citizenship, with all the attendant demographic implications.

2) Withdraw from the territories and grant them independence, with all the attendant security implications.

3) Forcibly exile the entire lot, with all the attendant human-rights implications.

4) Maintain the status quo, perpetuate the stateless status of these people, and let the situation continue to metastasize.

I believe Condoleezza is doing so well in putting together a Middle-East peace accord that President Bush is going to propose naming a university in Texas after her!

Watch out for another hurricane or some other disaster if Ms Rice puts too much pressure on Israel.
The Owner of the land is getting angry!

Cornelius, there is one more, fifth, possibility - a miracle of the first order - that the evangelical Christians, of the Zion-favouring sort, might by prayer and other means bring about a mass movement of 'Palestinians' away from the Death Cult, into a philo-Semitic species of Christianity. That wouldn't alter the situation vis a vis the surrounding Arab nations, but it would allow for co-existence of Jews and newly-christianised 'Palestinians' (non-dhimmi Christians, non-Jewhating, too).

Laugh all you like. I know as well as any rationalist and sceptic, the odds against such an event. Realistically, I can't see it happening. At present, the Walid Shoebats are few and far between, and some of them - like Mr Ayyad in Gaza - get murdered.

But as a Christian I am free to pray for miracles - mountains being cast into the sea, and so forth. I can choose to refuse to despair.

Let me remind my fellow believers, at least, of the words of a French Christian and Righteous Gentile, Jacques Ellul, at the conclusion of his book Un Chretien Pour Israel (One Christian For Israel):

"One Christian supporting Israel? Yes: which means , first of all, one Christian who trembles because he is engaged in a military and spiritual struggle which is infinitely beyond him.

"One Christian who trembles before the incomprehensible will of the Lord, our common Lord, when He causes His people to return according to His promise, but [seemingly only] in order to deliver them up to hatred and fear, although this return ought to be the proclamation of the age of peace.

"One Christian who trembles before the Mystery (not of Israel) [but] of the will of God, knowing that everything has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and that everything has also been fulfilled for Israel, fulfilled, brought about, brought to its fullness, done, realized, even at the very moment when the fragile plant of this tiny State is hammered by every storm, accused by every shameful lie, caught in the net of every necessity.

"One Christian supporting Israel, what is he? Nothing: a reed that quivers in the wind, a murmuring of [a] leaf, of a page, one book among a hundred thousand books; and who knows with bitterness that his book will be used for every propaganda, or not understood by all the other partisans. An attempt which cannot shift by one line the march of political time.

"And nevertheless he had to do it because a Christian who stands for Israel is, first of all, a man who lives in the Hope of the Lord, and who prays."
- Et cependant il faut le faire, parce qu’un chretien pour Israel, c’est d’abord un homme qui vit dans l’Esperance du Seigneur, et qui prie.

Those trying to make 'history' should consider the past history.

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2007/10/sixty-years-ago-wishful-western.html

60 years ago, things sounded remarkably similar, and we all know how that turned out!

The article linked is an excellent clipping of 1947 newspaper articles that you could imagine reading today about the current situation.

Here we have history to guide us, what are the odds our leaders will be able to recognize the precedent?

The making of a Palestinian state is not a key U.S. interest. It is as much of a key U.S. interest as that Saudi Arabia continues to sell the U.S. oil or that the Caliphate stop attacking the U.S. or its interests. The truth is sometimes the unarcticulated one. Rice has calculated that it is an American interest that the muslim countries quit using Israel as an excuse to belly ache about the U.S. In a certain sense, Rice has concluded that sacrificing Israel is in the best U.S. interest to stop the muslim world belly aching about perceived wrongs unparalleled in human history of the world where a savage people would battle over a tiny peace of desert now of some value since the Israelis put some labor into it. These are the kind of people who have consistently demonstrated they would rather you not have a nice home rather than they have a nice one for themselves. These people would rather destroy your home, than have a nice one for them self.

Only a moslem would equate this sand box battle with a worldwide battle against infidels and as justification for worldwide slaughter and murder of innocents.

It is not in the U.S. interest or any other infidel country interest that muslims are allowed to assert sovereignty over any geographic conception including the Zionist one.

Cornelieus:

Small point, but I'm not sure what the pop of the WB and Gaza are, but it's probably not 3 million. As I recall, a year or so ago, the concensus was that the PA had grossly exaggerated population growth by perhaps as much as a third.

As some of you may be aware, the EU parliament has issued some resolution to the effect that Israel must lift its closure of one of the Gaza border crossings. There have been so many stories about these crossings, but I'm pretty sure that the one in question was one where the EU observers were withdrawn due to safety issues (i.e. they were likely to be killed by those poor oppressed persons they were trying to help) -- or was that some holding facility where some "militants" were being held?

Rice does not understand Islam. At this point she apparently still must watch football games (we are always told that she is a fan of football -- it's designed to soften, to popularize, her image, one presumes), or practice the piano, or do those other things that the "multi-talented" "scholar of Russia" who "knows Russian" (her Russian is halting, as her one disastrous attempt to conduct an interview in Russian proved to Russian television viewers), and her specialty was not "Russia" but the Russian military, which made her, just like Paul Wolfowitz,someone untrained in, and unaware of, the influence of history, of culture, of their own particular culture and history, on people who, strange to say, do not all want to become little Americans and wouldn't know how to do so if one presented them with the possiblity.

She has been foolish on Iraq, suggesting that the Sunnis and Shi'a will just have to "get over it" because -- well, because that is the only way the Bush Administration's grand plans for Iraq could ever conceivably be successful. But Sunnis and Shi'a will not "get over it." And what's more, the Muslim Arabs will not "get over it" when it comes to their absolute refusal to consider Israel as a permanent presence. An Infidel nation-state in the middle of Dar al-Islam? Impossible. If there is a chance to destroy Israel militarily, it will be acted on, and the likelihood of the Muslim Arabs thinking that such a chance will arise again will be much greater if that so-called "Palestinian" state comes into being, with all the control over invasion routes, and West Bank aquifers (why not just cause a famine in Israel by polluting or destroying or diverting those aquifers?), and with the demands that will soon be made, perhaps even within a year of any signing, for more more more -- and the West, and America, having pressured Israel so much, having thrown it to the wolves but convinced itself, as Rice has, that it is not a throwing to the wolves, but the very "best deal" that can be made -- the "best deal" for Israel is never again to be suckered into, pressured into, any conceivable "deal" with Muslims who are firmly fixed on the basic principle of Muslim treaty-making with Infidel states, the principle that such treaties are to be broken, and such breaking of them is not merely allowed but encouraged by the example of Muhammad in the first Muslim "peace treaty" -- that of 628 A.D., which he made with the Meccans at Al-Hudaibiyyah. That treaty stands for all time as the model of Muslim treaty-making with Infidels, including those who now live and attempt to stay alive in the Infidel nation-state of Israel.

Does Rice know this? Of course not. She has never read, and not a single person who advises her has read, the texts of Islam on such treaty-making. But why can't they simply get hold of the most standard and obvious works? Why can't they get a copy -- Fouad Ajami, the Majid Khadduri Professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, should be able to get his hands on a copy, and the Library of Congress is said to be well-stocked as well -- of Majid Khadduri's "War and Peace in Islam" where, if they look, they will find set out the Islamic doctrine as to treaty-making.

But she doesn't have time. And besides, it would raise so many disturbing questions. It would imply that all that effort, over so many years, by assored dennis-rosses and richard-haasses and henry-kissingers and bill-clintons and william-rogers and tutti quanti, to use shuttle diplomacy, and negotiations, and handshakes on the goddam lawn, and smiles for the photographers, all of them ending, always, with some kind of further Israeli concession, and a further legitimizing, before the world's public, of the Arab Muslim Jihad (not least by legitimizing the very idea of a "Palestinian" people with its own history and own claims, when that people are merely local Muslim Arabs, identical in language,religion, and every other way to those on the other side of the Jordan, and to many other Arabs as well, for the "national" identity of Muslim Arabs is not important in the way national identity is to pepople in the Western world).

She's not able to learn beyond what she learned long ago. She seems intelligent by comparison with her boss. She's elegantly turned out. She's self-assured, because people defer to her, and those who don't defer to her are usually unwilling to demonstrate that they find her pretensions ridiculous. However, the nuclear-arms expert, David Kay, who had many dealings with her, described her as the "worst national security adviser" in the history of the country. And given that among the rivals for that crown are Brzezinski and Scowcroft, that is saying something.

Rice does not understand Islam. At this point she apparently still must watch football games (we are always told that she is a fan of football -- it's designed to soften, to popularize, her image, one presumes), or practice the piano, or do those other things that the "multi-talented" "scholar of Russia" who "knows Russian" (her Russian is halting, as her one disastrous attempt to conduct an interview in Russian proved to Russian television viewers), and her specialty was not "Russia" but the Russian military, which made her, just like Paul Wolfowitz,someone untrained in, and unaware of, the influence of history, of culture, of their own particular culture and history, on people who, strange to say, do not all want to become little Americans and wouldn't know how to do so if one presented them with the possiblity.

She has been foolish on Iraq, suggesting that the Sunnis and Shi'a will just have to "get over it" because -- well, because that is the only way the Bush Administration's grand plans for Iraq could ever conceivably be successful. But Sunnis and Shi'a will not "get over it." And what's more, the Muslim Arabs will not "get over it" when it comes to their absolute refusal to consider Israel as a permanent presence. An Infidel nation-state in the middle of Dar al-Islam? Impossible. If there is a chance to destroy Israel militarily, it will be acted on, and the likelihood of the Muslim Arabs thinking that such a chance will arise again will be much greater if that so-called "Palestinian" state comes into being, with all the control over invasion routes, and West Bank aquifers (why not just cause a famine in Israel by polluting or destroying or diverting those aquifers?), and with the demands that will soon be made, perhaps even within a year of any signing, for more more more -- and the West, and America, having pressured Israel so much, having thrown it to the wolves but convinced itself, as Rice has, that it is not a throwing to the wolves, but the very "best deal" that can be made -- the "best deal" for Israel is never again to be suckered into, pressured into, any conceivable "deal" with Muslims who are firmly fixed on the basic principle of Muslim treaty-making with Infidel states, the principle that such treaties are to be broken, and such breaking of them is not merely allowed but encouraged by the example of Muhammad in the first Muslim "peace treaty" -- that of 628 A.D., which he made with the Meccans at Al-Hudaibiyyah. That treaty stands for all time as the model of Muslim treaty-making with Infidels, including those who now live and attempt to stay alive in the Infidel nation-state of Israel.

Does Rice know this? Of course not. She has never read, and not a single person who advises her has read, the texts of Islam on such treaty-making. But why can't they simply get hold of the most standard and obvious works? Why can't they get a copy -- Fouad Ajami, the Majid Khadduri Professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, should be able to get his hands on a copy, and the Library of Congress is said to be well-stocked as well -- of Majid Khadduri's "War and Peace in Islam" where, if they look, they will find set out the Islamic doctrine as to treaty-making.

But she doesn't have time. And besides, it would raise so many disturbing questions. It would imply that all that effort, over so many years, by assored dennis-rosses and richard-haasses and henry-kissingers and bill-clintons and william-rogers and tutti quanti, to use shuttle diplomacy, and negotiations, and handshakes on the goddam lawn, and smiles for the photographers, all of them ending, always, with some kind of further Israeli concession, and a further legitimizing, before the world's public, of the Arab Muslim Jihad (not least by legitimizing the very idea of a "Palestinian" people with its own history and own claims, when that people are merely local Muslim Arabs, identical in language,religion, and every other way to those on the other side of the Jordan, and to many other Arabs as well, for the "national" identity of Muslim Arabs is not important in the way national identity is to pepople in the Western world).

She's not able to learn beyond what she learned long ago. She seems intelligent by comparison with her boss. She's elegantly turned out. She's self-assured, because people defer to her, and those who don't defer to her are usually unwilling to demonstrate that they find her pretensions ridiculous. However, the nuclear-arms expert, David Kay, who had many dealings with her, described her as the "worst national security adviser" in the history of the country. And given that among the rivals for that crown are Brzezinski and Scowcroft, that is saying something.

Here is Rice on the Sunnis and Shi'a in Iraq, and how they will simply have to "overcome" their 1300-year quarrel, because, you see, otherwise American policy in Iraq would not make sense:

Fitzgerald: Rice and worse than Rice

The Secretary of State recently stated that the Middle East will have to “overcome” the tendency to see things in Sunni-Shi’a terms. There are two things wrong with the statement of Condoleeza Rice.

The first is the o'erweening, history-ignoring idea that Sunni-Shi'a rivalries and hostilities can "be overcome." The Sunni-Shi'a split long ago transcended the initial quarrel over succession. Now there are differences in the organization of the Shi'a and Sunni variants of Islam: in organization (the power of the Shi'a ayatollahs and other Shi'a clergy has nothing similar in Sunni Islam); in ritual (the Shi'a Ashoura, with its emphasis on self-flagellation); and practice (the Shi'a shrines and visits to those shrines, so offensive to austere Sunnis, especially to the most austere of all, the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia).

The belief that somehow deeply-held beliefs and attitudes can be "overcome" seems to approach all this as if it were a question of civil rights in the South. One of the silliest and most harmful aspects of American governments is the belief that many things are susceptible of change, or of change that will come quickly. "Let's have self-determination now" or "Let's end poverty the way Jeffery Sachs says we can" or "Let's just get right in there and reform Islam." A blend of naivete, ignorance, and arrogance, which yields a most unappetizing brew.

The second thing wrong with Rice's statement is that apparently she cannot conceive of why this Sunni-Shi'a split is a good thing for Infidels. She cannot conceive of why chaos and confusion and endless hostility between the two main branches or sects of Islam is something to be exploited, not to be deplored. It appears that American governments want always to take the side of this or that plausible group of Muslims. First, it was the Shi'a in exile who managed to woo and win so many in the American government with their tales of WMD (Chalabi and his group), and others who confidently predicted that once the Americans "liberated" Iraq they would be greeted, those Americans, with an outpouring of joy and presumably permanent gratitude that "would make the liberation of Kabul look like a funeral procession." It would cost, according to Wolfowitz and others, nothing like what it cost to maintain those sanctions -- possibly a few tens of billions of dollars. And then it would be over. A "cakewalk," wrote Kenneth Adelman (sometime purveyor of Shakespeare to corporations so that the tycoons and tycoonettes can apply "Shakespeare to the business world).

Many have in this farce, on all sides, in the government, and in the press, been weighted and found wanting.

Meanwhile, there's something just over here, freshly scribbled on this wall, that I'd like to show our rulers and our pundits:

"Mene, mene, tekel upharsin."

Do you think they'll be able to make it out?

Yet Rice is not the worst. She is far superior to others who preceded her. If she invites comparison with two former and still nattering-away National Security Advisers, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, Condoleeza Rice only gains by the comparison. But that should not be the point of comparison. She, and all others in the government, should be spending their days and nights studying Islam, studying not only the texts -- Qur'an, Hadith, Sira -- but how those texts are naturally received by, not all, but almost all, Muslims, and figure out on what side the textual authority lies. They should learn about taqiyya. They should learn about the history of Islamic conquest and about the subjugation of non-Muslims -- which is not only a matter of history, but can be seen today in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iraq, Sudan, Saudi Arabia (where the non-Muslims are to found only among the expatriate wage-slaves). They must learn what is so misleading about the phrase "moderate Muslim" -- misleading and unhelpful. They must learn to detect the plausible from the true, to discover the smyler with the knyf under his cloke, as Chaucer emblemized the figure of Treachery he found in Boccaccio, well in advance.

They must learn to understand it all, and to understand not only the texts and the history, but the other attitudes that naturally arise in Islam: aggression, violence, inability to compromise, susceptibility to the most primitive conspiracy theories, blaming of non-Muslims for all the ills that should rightly be attributed to Islam but of course cannot be, and so on.

These are the things she, and so many others, including all of the would-be Presidents now eagerly seeking our support, must learn. Now, not in five or ten years. Now.

[Posted by Hugh at January 23, 2007]

The pro-"Palestinians" will be on this idea like white on rice.

Anything that gives their Arab imperialism legitimacy, and fails to examine the history of the entire conflict, is a boost to their aims.

Fewer promises and more realism would work more to our national interest.

A posting from September 24, 2007:

"There's a sense of momentum in support of the Palestinians and Israelis in their effort to end the conflict,' Rice said. ``Given that it has been a number of years since the Israelis and Palestinians have expressed their interest in discussing the core issues between them, it is very important that the regional players of the international community mobilize to support them.' --US Secretary of State Rice

It is frightening to think that Olmert continues to reign in Israel, despite his obvious failure to understand -- to begin to understand -- the reasons why any negotiations with Arab Muslims over the fate of Israel (for that is what negotiating a "two-state solution" is -- a negotiation over the amount of increase in Israel's vulnerability to Muslim conquest, through a ratcheting up of all the means by which pressure -- economic, diplomatic, demographic -- can be applied.

The Arabs become more, not less of a threat, should they remain on the West Bank on land that -- through the constant concessions made by Olmert and his many predecessors, would no longer be controlled by Israel's army together with the brave civilians (those so-called "settlers" who have every right, not least under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine itself, to be there, and to multiply) whose presence is legally, historically, and morally justified. In June 1967 Israel should have promptly annexed the "West Bank" and it should have explained, should have been explaining all along, since 1948, that Arab opposition to Israel is merely a Lesser Jihad, and is not to be assuaged in the slightest by any territorial or other concessions made by the Infidel state.

The Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira do not lead to the proposition that "if Infidels yield in part, you can leave them alone" or "A two-state solution is just the ticket, and the Infidel state of Israel can then be permitted to exist."

No. The world belongs to Allah and to his people. It is Islam that must dominate everywhere. Every dunam of Israel belongs to Dar al-Islam, just as Spain and Sicily and Greece, and Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, much of Russia, and so many other places, do. And history continues deliberately to be concocted by Muslims ("Muslims discovered and settled America" or "Muslims were in Australia centuries ago" or --fill in whatever similar nonsense you have heard right here) so as to establish a Muslim connection, backdated by centuries or millennia (yes, there were Muslims you see, before there was an Islam -- for everyone is born a Muslim, and Islam itself is uncreated, has always existed, but was merely "revealed" in its whole to Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets).

For its entire existence Israel has had a Lesser Jihad waged against it. It has been waged through military warfare, conventionally understood. It has been waged through what non-Muslims have little difficulty as recognizing as "terrorism" directed at civilians, but that many Muslims think is just fine, for in their view all Israelis, including babies in the womb that might grow up to be Israeli soldiers, are legitimate targets. It has been waged through economic warfare, such as economic boycotts, including boycotting Western companies that dare to buy or sell with Israel, and attempts to deny Israel use of the Red Sea and the Suez Canal for its trade. It has included diplomatic warfare, including the bribes used so successfully after the Six-Day War to get sub-Saharan countries to break relations with Israel, which until then had conducted the most appropriate and successful of all aid efforts in black Africa. It has been waged in the incessant propaganda that is fed the world's media, and that has also been aided by the money used to buy up or reward Western hirelings capable of joining in the effort to blacken the image of Israel, a propaganda effort that naturally makes good use of those who suffer from the pre-existing mental pathology that we call antisemitism, and that at a minimum has been said to affect ten percent of the Western population, and in some places, considerably more. All of these things go on, and yet there are Israelis, including that accidental president, the deplorable Olmert (who deserves no credit, none, for the attack two weeks ago on that installation in Syria -- that was a decision made by the military that Olmert could not have opposed), who think that they can continue to refrain from studying Islam, from learning about Islam, from finding out what it is that Islam inculcates.

This farce can't continue. It is the duty of all those in the Israeli ruling elites to find out about Islam, however unpleasant that task may be, however much damage it does to their dreams and schemes (see the Fool of Chelm, Shimon Peres, for a good example), and however impossible it makes such desperate efforts as this Rice-backed "Quartet" and that November meeting which can only have the effect, as all such meetings have had the effect, in those Joint Statements or Communiques, of having the Israeli side yet again parrot, and appear to believe deeply in, those phrases about "the Palestinian people" and, of course, some "peace process" that completely ignores -- that indeed has to ignore -- the nature of Islam, and the way that Muslims are taught to regard, and to treat, all treaties made between Muslims and Infidels. To find this out, you need only go to Majid Khadduri's "The Law of War and Peace in Islam." No doubt, among the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on the Middle East each year, and with all the attention given over so many years to that hectic vacancy of shuttle diplomacy (the Rogers Plan, the Kissinger Plan, the Senor-Fulano-de-Tal Plan) and those officious rosses and indyks and haasses, each having devoted his entire professional life to a chimera, the chimera of a "permanent peace" between "Arabs and Israelis" on the basis of negotiations, and a "peace process," and then that appetizing, photo-op thing, the treaty and the smiles and the handshakes that mean, in the eyes of Islam, absolutely nothing.

So my question is this: Has Condoleezza Rice, has George Bush, has Ehud Olmert, has Tzipi Livni, have the self-assured columnists in The Times (the execrable Friedman, for example) or The Bandar Beacon, or Ha'aretz, have any of them bothered to study Muslim doctrine on treaties with Infidels, as clearly set out in a book that can be obtained, with a click on-line, and the payment of, possibly, thirty or forty dollars?

Any of them?

No?

Why not?

Here's a previous piece on the only thing that will prevent a future Arab attack on Israel. Not a "Palestinian" state, which will merely offer headaches, and worse than headaches, for Israel, the United States, and the entire Middle East (even if the entire Middle East is full of people who will want that "Palestinian" state as a first step to removing the Infidel presence on holy Muslim soil). It is called "Darura" and that is a word that Condoleezza Rice, and Ehud Olmert (the worst Israeli leader in its brief history) should study, should ponder. But they won't. At this point, it's too much trouble. At this point Olmert will do anything to prevent himself from being indicted and winning temporary favor; at this point Rice, and Bush, will do anything to have what looks to the foolish (and there are many foolish) to be a "victory for peace" (it is rather an assurance of a future war) in the Middle East. They deserve each other. A marriage made in heaven. And who cares if the security of Israel is thereby permanently imperilled?

Fitzgerald: Darura

"The only solution ultimately is to re-launch the framework for a negotiated peace with a two-state solution at the heart of it..." -- from a recent statement by Tony Blair

He's well-spoken and incoherent, withal. He can't figure out Islam, and doesn't want to. It's too disturbing. Too many problems are posed, if he were to begin to understand it. He knows there's a problem with Islam -- outside Great Britain, and deep inside Great Britain. But he allows himself to believe that it is "manageable." He allows himself to be believe that there is a permanent "solution." And when it comes to Israel, he assumes that the "solution" is based on Israel withdrawing still further from land to which it has legal, historic, and moral title. The clear intent and the specific provisions of the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine, which mandate, like those others of the League, was to have its precise terms respected in toto by the successor organization, the United Nations.

Blair, like so many others, ignores completely these legal, historic, and moral claims. Child of the century, or rather child of the last few decades, he chooses to believe that the sudden appearance of the phrase "Palestinian people" after the Six-Day War, and the careful and relentless promotion of this soi-disant "Palestinian people," and the rewriting of history that took place to accompany it, and the absence of any context, have no significance. He ignores the context of what is wrongly called the "Arab world" but which has many, and once had even more, non-Arab and non-Muslim minorities. He also ignores the fact that the Jews managed on their own to return and to buy land. Not a single dunam of land was taken from Arabs before they made war in 1948, and very little after that. After all, nearly 90% of Israel, as the successor state to Mandatory Palestine, was state or waste land. It passed from the Ottoman government to the British Mandatory Authority to Israel -- a fact that so many ignore, or never bothered to find out.

Blair would have us believe that the texts of Islam do not mean what they say. Or perhaps he does not know what they say. What they say is this: no Infidel state can be permitted, whatever its size, on any land that was once a part of Dar al-Islam. Once conquered by Islam, territory belongs forever to Muslims. In a sense, you might well ask, what does it matter? Doesn't, in the Islamic view, the whole world belong ultimately to Islam? Isn't Islam everywhere to dominate, aren't Muslims everywhere, ultimately, to rule?

And you would be right. But there is a matter of priorities. The unprecedented has now occurred -- millions and now tens of millions of Muslims have been allowed to settle deep within Infidel lands, behind what Muslims themselves are taught to regard as, essentially, enemy lines. Naturally, still weak because far less numerous behind those enemy lines, Muslims in the Infidel lands must prevent those Infidels from examining too closely the texts and tenets of Islam, and figuring out what they mean. They must prevent those Infidels from looking too closely at the history of Islamic Jihad-conquest, and especially at the history of the subsequent subjugation of non-Muslims from Spain to East Asia, over 1350 years. They must prevent Infidels from finding out about Muslim attitudes toward many kinds of artistic expression (sculpture, paintings of living creatures, music) and toward the free and skeptical inquiry that makes science possible, and is everywhere encouraged in the advanced West, and discouraged in Islam. They must keep up a patter of phony sweetness-and-light, and misrepresent Islam as "respecting" Christianity and Judaism.

And Infidels don’t generally know that major figures from both those religions have been appropriated by Islam and turned into Muslims -- for we are all Muslims, right back to Abraham, in the Islamic view. They usually don’t bother to examine what the Islamic "Jesus" and the Islamic "Moses" are, in Islam. Muslim-Christian and Muslim-Jewish "dialogues" become occasions for special pleading and careful taqiyya-and-tu-quoque by Muslim spokesmen, delivered to self-selected groups of Infidels. Those Infidels, meanwhile, are in equal measures ignorant, naive, and self-preening: "We are willing to meet and listen and dialogue with our Muslim brothers -- unlike all those others, the benighted and the bigoted. We are morally superior, and we will demonstrate that moral superiority by taking every occasion to defend 'our Muslim brothers' from those who would divide us."

The beachhead is gained, and the Muslim troops fan out across the new land, ready to spread Islam. They spread it in the prisons among those looking for justification for their alienation from The System, Amerika, Kapitalism, and finding Islam as the perfect vehicle to justify their own past, and possibly future, criminal behavior, and in many cases, to dignify it, draping naked aggression in the cloak of a new faith. And since so many of the undisciplined long not merely for discipline, but for Total Discipline, Islam provides a ready-made Community of Believers, who will enforce, in every way, rules that cover every detail of life. Bush likes to prate about how everyone "wants freedom." It's nonsense. The spirit of wanting to march in serried ranks, of Belonging to the Group (Nuremberg! Hitlerjugend! Jawohl!), and of knowing what one is to do, for every occasion, at every step, is a strong one. There are many who cannot stand or do not know how to use "freedom" (which Bush himself hardly understands), and who long for Authority.

And that is what Islam provides: Authority, the Authority of Allah and the Example of Muhammad, whose life, whose words and deeds serve as a gloss on the will expressed by Allah in the Qur'an.

Blair, as a leading spokesman of the nattering classes (World Leader Division), goes on about a "manageable" problem to which there is a "solution." He wishes tiny, permanently beleaguered Israel, the physical refuge and embodiment of the most persecuted tribe in human history, to pay the price for his inability, and that of others, to dare to come to grips with the menace of Islam. He wants to prolong for a while longer the illusion that the problem arises from something we, the Infidels have done. In this case, the Infidels are those stubborn Israelis, who keep insisting on staying alive, who keep insisting on being able to have a minimum level of defensible borders, who keep insisting -- though not nearly as effectively as they should and could -- that yes, they have legal, historic, and moral rights to this land, that they are the victims of an Arab siege. The Israelis still do not call it, as they should, a Jihad, albeit a Local or Lesser Jihad. The monstrous rewriting of history that has gone on virtually unopposed since the Six-Day War needs itself to be rewritten, and the truth, or much of it, brought back to the consciousness of those in the West who have no idea of it – such as Blair, Rice, and other "two-state" solutionists.

Darura. "Darura" in Arabic means "necessity." The Arabs and Muslims understand this idea. "Necessity" can justify even violating explicit prohibitions. You may, if starving, eat pork, according to some. You may, if you need to protect the faith, lie to Infidels -- lie about Islam itself, lie about your own belief in Islam. There is no further surrender of territory by Israel that will bring about "peace" with the Arab Muslims. The Arabs, and the shock troops of Arab Islam in the Lesser Jihad against Israel, are divided. But they are not divided the way that Blair and Rice and others seem to think. They are not divided, that is, between those who are ready to permanently accept Israel's existence (and what's more, its right to permanent existence) and those who are not.

No. They are divided, rather, between those who are the Slow Jihadists and those who are the Fast Jihadists. The Slow Jihadists are what the media like to repeatedly assure us are the "moderates." How many times have you seen a reporter blandly begin by referring in his dispatch to "the moderate Mahmoud Abbas" or "the moderates of Fatah"? The Homeric epithets here are not singer-of-tales mnemonic devices, but rather part of mental bullying, a deliberate attempt to tell us what to make of facts, not to think for ourselves. Thinking for yourself is discouraged. You must repeat: Abbas “the moderate,” Fatah “the moderates.” You must further be told that what is called the “Two-State Solution” is indeed a “Solution.” If it weren’t, why would such impressive people as Condoleeza Rice or Tony Blair, or the “Quartet” (the Four Horsemen of Israel’s Apocalypse is more like it), call it a “Two-State Solution”?

Let’s get this straight. There is no difference in the ultimate goal of Fatah or of Hamas. Both want Israel as a Jewish state to disappear. They both know it is wrong, unjust, contra naturam, for Infidels, and especially the Jews, to possess land that was once ruled by Muslims. This is especially true of the Jews, who are so despised in the Islamic world for being weak, and are the special focus of hatred. (See Andrew Bostom’s forthcoming collection of documents and essays. It will undo Bernard Lewis’ attribution of Muslim antisemitism to the influence of European antisemitism, when Muslim antisemitism has independent and different sources, to be found in Qur’an, Hadith, and sira.)

The difference is in tactics. Fatah’s Mahmoud Abbas, loyal collaborator for decades with Yassir Arafat, behind the mild-mannered generally-accepted-accounting-principles suit-and-tie demeanor, is a firm supporter of terrorism in the past and in the present too, if the targets are the right ones. He believes that it will take patience. It will take a longer effort to soften Israel up, by continuing to weaken Israel economically and diplomatically, and militarily by pushing it back to the 1949 Armistice Lines which -- for god’s sake, just look at a map, and just imagine you are in the IDF and trying to plan to defend the population of Israel in this 1949 armistice lines, lines which the Arabs themselves always refused to make permanent.

Hamas, on the other hand, doesn’t want to wait. It wants not to chip away at Israel, not to slowly reduce it to conquerable proportions, but to subject it to military attack right now. It might consider a very temporary hudna or truce, but only so long as everyone is clear, including the Israelis, that it is temporary. And it is amusing to see how indignant Hamas becomes when Israel seems ill-disposed toward such an idea. Mahmoud Abbas himself can’t understand why, given how little is demanded of him by the outside world, and given how eager every Infidel government seems to be to ignore his real nature and the real goals of Fatah and of all the “Palestinians,” Hamas remains so stubbornly, shoot-yourself-in-the-foot pur et dur. But there it is.

In other words, the differences are only differences in means, not ends: in timing and in tactics. Why this should not be understood in the West, why assorted blairs and rices cannot or will not understood, is testimony to something. Fear of realizing the truth, for what it might mean. Embarrassment on the part of those who have spent their entire professional lives participating in, and pontificating about, “negotiations” and a “peace process” which they solemnly parse every few weeks -- all those dennis-rosses, and martin-indyks, and richard-hasses, and aaron-millers, who if they had actually noticed the gorilla of Islam in the room and grasped its significance, would have realized how foolish and time-wasting and false-hope-raising, and doomed-to-fail, were not merely this or that portentous airplaning back and forth, but the whole dismal thing. Do you think Bill Clinton, who entertained Yassir Arafat more than he did any other foreign “leader,” will ever grasp Islam, and therefore grasp what a waste it all was, how pointless, how stupid?

When I write “pointless” and “stupid,” I mean, of course, “pointless” and “stupid” for those who wish Israel well, wish Israel to survive. I do not mean….the others. Those others harbor hostility toward Israel that is often connected not merely to ignorance or laziness, but to a deeper much more unpleasant mental pathology. The business of antisemitism and vicious anti-Israel activities gives rise, nowadays, to a version of the chicken-and-egg problem. Just as we used to say as children “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” a new version might be “which came first, antisemitism or anti-Israel sentiment based on ignorance” -- for those two mutually reinforce, and prompt, one another.

If the goal is “peace” between Arabs and Israel, there is only one way to ensure that peace. It is not to give the Slow Jihadists what they want. It is not to call a “solution” that which will only further imperil Israel, and whet, not sate, Arab and Muslim appetites. It is to ensure that Israel is not only relieved of the constant pressuring by uncomprehending and cruel outsiders, who do not face the peril that Israel has and will always face, but is regarded by those who would destroy it as so obviously superior in military might that they will give up hope of destroying it and simply learn to live with their resentment, as they did, more or less, between 1948 and 1967.

Only this time Israel will have something like defensible borders, the borders which it was meant all along to include, and didn’t include in 1948 simply because Ben Gurion called a halt to the war. After all, the land that Israel currently possesses or controls is far less than the amount of land originally set aside for the Mandate for Palestine, a mandate whose express provisions show that it was created for the exclusive purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home. Israel, at the moment, save for Gaza, possesses Western Palestine, for the British decided that the provisions of the Mandate about the mandatory’s duty to “facilitate Jewish immigration” and “close Jewish settlement on the land” would not apply to the land east of the Jordan, which became, for realpolitik purposes, the Emirate of Transjordan. But that should be it. Israel gave, and gave, and gave. The giving has to stop.

And the largest and only sure keeper of the peace between Arabs and Israel is the IDF. Not the UN, not Javier Solana’s would-be EU ‘peacekeepers.” Only the IDF. The civilised world -- that is, the civilized themselves -- must support not “negotiations” and “peace processes” between Israel (or any Infidel state) and Muslim states or groups. For these will only lead to tangible concessions on the part of the Infidels, and no concessions, only temporary and false “truces,” on the part of those who, as Majid Khadduri and many others have pointed out, make “treaties” with Infidels only on the model of Al-Hudaibiyya. Treaties, that is, in the Muslim view are not subject to the Western idea, so natural that we assume it always existed, of Pacta sunt servanda. No, in Islam treaties are not to be obeyed. That is the rule: treaties, by the Muslim side, are not to be obeyed, but rather, breached at the first opportunity.

Darura.

Memorize that word. Understand its significance. And if you are a would-be diplomat going off to the Middle East, don’t you dare leave home without it.

[Posted by Hugh at June 8, 2007]

Assalamau Laikum all,

60 years have gone by where the Palestinian peoples who have lost their land have had to walk on bombshells (or to Lebanon, Syria etc)….whilst Israel & the Amerike walked on egg shells.

So a two state solution would have all walking on terra firma…which can only be good.

Will there be difficulties …ofcourse and peoples… many of them may die…, look at the history of the India-Pak partitition …where the lily livered British cut & ran & eh…”left them to it”. The Punjab Boundry force (PBF) consisted of Indian soldiers who had scant resources to protect the “migration” and possibly 1 millions of peoples died.

The only thing that the Amerike need to do here is to protect this migration via their black hawks…up & down the line….from Hamas and the Israelis at the same time.

The Amerike also should keep an eye on Iran & Iraq to ensure that the migration goes smoothly and without violence.

A two state solution will also ensure that the Iranians do not cause so much mischief…annihilation of Israel is more difficult with a complete (UN protection included) state of Allah’s chosen next door.

Equally Hamas may become more isolated and perhaps it may be easier to prevent them firing their rockets at Israel.

This sounds like a win-win situation to me….and if it works…remember this Allah T’allah’s work…in which he instructed the Kaffur to sort out the mess that they started.

While one wants to think well of Ms. Rice,
She has gotten appalling advice.
She's about to create
A jihadist state
And all one can say is, "No dice."

There has never been a "palestine"
The countries in the middle-east were carved from the remains of the Ottoman Empire.
The Jews who have had a constant presence in Israel for 3700 years, have as much right to live there as any Arab.
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened/

'Toejam' suggested "I believe Condoleezza is doing so well in putting together a Middle-East peace accord that President Bush is going to propose naming a university in Texas after her!"

Condescending U.? ;)

"Rice declared that creation of a Palestinian state is a key U.S. interest."

Bush Translation: The Arabians say this will be good for U.S. interest.

"this sounds like a win-win situation [a "two-state" "solution"] to me..."
-- from Muslim poster Naseem above

No. The mere conference, even if nothing concrete comes of it, will once more have the Israeli government uttering such words as "Palestinian people" and expressing its desire that "the Palestinian people" have a "Palestinian state." And that utterance alone is bad, ahistorical, and damaging to Israel, and damaging as well to the entire Western world, for if that Western world does not come to undertand that the war against Israel is a Lesser Jihad, a Lesser Jihad that cannot end, in Muslim eyes, until every bit of Israel falls again under Muslim domination, then the people outside of Israel, in Western Europe, will be less able to grasp -- will further delay the day of their grasping -- that they too face a Jihad, a Jihad conducted not so much through diplmatic pressures and economic boycotts and steady terrorism and intermittent wars, as the Lesser Jihad against Israel is conducted, but rather through the Money Weapon, Da'wa, and above all, that demographic conquest that proceeds inexorably, and that the governments and peoples of Western Europe appear not to grasp, appear not to comprehend, partly because so many in their elites are either hirelings of the Arabs, or ideological supporters of the Arabs and Islam, some on the left out of a third-worldism gone mad, as well as antisemitism -- now a feature of the left -- and anti-Americanism, and on the extreme right by two of those three impulseses, to wit: those old standbys, the pre-existing conditions of antisemitism and anti-Americanism.

For its own sake, and for the sake of other Infidels, the Israelis must begin to understand Islam and what Islam means for all these negotiations and treaties. What it means is that negotiations and treaties are essentially worthless from the standpoint of the Infidel signer -- in this case, Israel. Only deterrence, that is both overwhelming and understood to be overwhelming, will keep the peace between Muslim and non-Muslim states, beginning with Israel.

That's what Olmert and Rice and others have to learn. It's not very difficult. But so far such understanding has eluded them.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened/

If they are going to pursue Middle East peace then do it and conclude it.

Have the Palestinians and Israel sign their contract. But have one or two Arab countries sponsor the Palestinians, and also sign onto the contract.

If the Palestinians break the contract (by definitiona written into the contract, not by a U.N. committee) then the Arab sponsors have to take the Palestinians in as citizens.

Any such "solution" will give Bush and Rice a temporary "victory" that they can flaunt, and make the less intelligent part of the Israeli electorate temporarily willing to overlook Olmert's many misdeeds, some of them possibly calling for criminal prosecution. But Israel will pay, down the line, in blood for this shadow-play, one that combines elements of a farce with many more elements of a tragedy.

Just a though, how about we take everyone from Israel and bring them to the U.S. in exchange for all the Muslims already living here, then ban any immigration there after?

Wait, forgot our brothers and sisters in the UK, same for them as well.

Rice declared that creation of a Palestinian state is a key U.S. interest.

Yes, indeed. They will be a trusted and loyal friend to the United States Dr. Rice.

Hope you become thier first Secretary of State after you leave office here.

They'll just love you to death.

For its own sake, and for the sake of other Infidels, the Israelis must begin to understand Islam and what Islam means for all these negotiations and treaties. What it means is that negotiations and treaties are essentially worthless from the standpoint of the Infidel signer -- in this case, Israel. Only deterrence, that is both overwhelming and understood to be overwhelming, will keep the peace between Muslim and non-Muslim states, beginning with Israel.
Posted by: Hugh

It is a grievous state of affairs. Israel probably wants to maintain these two Arab states, West Bank and Gaza, as ‘buffer’ states against the other hostile Arab neighbors. As ‘caged in’ Palestinian Arabs, they pose a perpetual threat, but not as much of a threat as if these two buffers were incorporated, hypothetically, into the other Arab hostiles. Then their ability to retaliate against any jihad attacks, whether rocket or suicide bombings, or kidnapping and hostage taking, would become more difficult than now. Could Israel’s air force conduct bombing raids or rain missiles on other sovereign states for any length of time before the UN and all the One Worlders start crying cease and desist? No, they know that a Lebanon styled war, or nuke sites knockouts, or taking out Arab missile launch sites, can be more effective if done within their buffers. This may be why these two Arab-Palestinian states are kept under lock and key, though nobody likes this solution, least of all Condi. But what other choice does Israel have? Turn over these buffers to Jordan and Syria? That would be unacceptable. So they have to negotiate ‘something’, though all parties know the treaties are worthless pieces of paper. Creation of Palestinian states changes nothing.

Even if we ignore the naturally inbred anti-Semitism, the Arab-jihad forever angst, the odious Islamic pathological lies and deceits, the Durura Arab-imperative of the whole world for Allah and nothing ever given back (Arab culture is one of ‘takers’ and not givers), though these are onerous obstacles to peace in the Middle East, there is little purpose in crying over it, and act as if there is no possible solution to this gargantuan problem. Let them have their Palestinian states, if they could even agree to so little as that, but then declare war on these states with full force, which means full destructive force, if these states act with hostility towards Israel. That would mean massive civilian deaths, such as war causes, but if the One Worlders don’t like this solution to renewed hostilities from these new Arab states, then let them send in their troops to occupy these new Arab states and manage them. We know this will not happen, in part because the UN has no power, and mostly because the political Left One-Worlders would not want to. So will creating a Palestinian Arab State solve the current problem of hostilities towards Israel? Even if they verbally swear upon their Allah that they acknowledge Israel’s right to exist (which we know from their past would be pure deception, since their Mohammed god of Allah would not let them), the physical challenge of keeping these Arabs from self destructive activities would not cease. The existence of a Palestinian State, so called, is an endorsement of a perpetual state of war in the Middle East. Does Condi understand this? Do the powers in Israel understand this? There is no “Palestinian solution” until such time that they reject Mohammed’s teachings of perpetual war against the ‘infidels’, which we know is impossible.

That leaves only two real possibilities. One is total deportation of Arab Palestinians to some consortium of Central Asian states, or African countries willing to take them, to rid of the problem (the people), in which case the land goes entirely to Israel (Jews had been in Palestine for 3700 years); or Two is to administer the now Israeli controlled (sort of controlled) lands of Gaza and West Bank in the hands of neutral third parties, either the UN (which is a lost cause) or African peacekeepers, or perhaps a consortium of Asian countries. (The only solution acceptable to those inconsolable Islamic Arabs would be a neutral third party of their co-religionists, though this already makes it less than neutral.) This second gets Israel off the hook for having to waste more men and money on this intractable problem of the Arab Palestinians, and dumps the problem on the One-Worlder community. However, as a right of self defense, Israel still has the right to protect its sovereignty with full assault if provoked, same as before. The first solution is preferable, because it would rid the pestilence from the region. The only other possibility left is one nobody wants, and that is full scale war against the Palestine Arabs, to beat them into total submission, and thus eliminate their threat from the region ( which they occupied as Islamics for past 1300 years of Jihad). In all, there is no Palestinian State solution, except one administered by the One-Worlders. Is this what Condi has in mind? What other choice does she have?

There is already a Palestinian state, it's known as Jordan.

I think we have already seen what a Palestinian State would look like--in fact, we already *have* a Palestinian state. That would be Gaza.

Israel has no direct authority in Gaza any longer. Also, thanks to the IDF (under orders) Gaza is "Judenrein".

So what does this paradise look like? It has gone from bad to worse. Always a haven and staging ground for terrorism against Israel, it has become more and more a center for Jihad. And how about life for the average Gazan Palestinian?

This too has become harsher now that there is no pesky Jewish presence. Remember the greenhouse plan, paid for in large part by American Jewish charitable efforts, to purchase Jewish settler greenhouses for Palestinians, so that they could get a good start on their peaceful and prosperous state?. The greenhouses were all vandalized and then destroyed.

Then, when the Jews--the hated Infidels--were gone, you had the ensuing and inevitable fratricide, as Hamas murdered and drove out their marginally more "moderate" Fatah bretheren. And what an ugly series of events it was, too--with Hamas defenestrating their enemies, and knee-capping them so they could not flee, and even following them into hospitals to finish them off. Then we had the bizarre spectacle of terrified Palestinians turning to hated Israel to save them from their fellow Jihadists, and lambasting them for not being quick enough about it.

And what about now? We see the creeping rise of Islamism, with attacks on music shops and unveiled women. And more and more we see the iindoctrination of the young, with little children in school parades dressed in mock suicide bombing vests, and Mickey Rat himself, Farfour, urging little children to "martyrdom" before serving as a fine example himself, his character dying as a "Shaheed", improbably beaten to death by an Israeli settler. And so the legacy of the "Palestinian State" is passed down to a new generation.

There will only be more of the same.

From the article:

Saying the time is now for a Palestinian state, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Monday prodded Israel...

She couldn't be more wrong. Now is the time for the infidel to start studying Islam assiduously, now is the time to learn as much as possible as quickly as possible about Islamic beliefs and Islamic history. Their real beliefs and real history, not the ones we wish they had. Unilaterally giving Muslims yet another piece (after Trans-Jordan and Gaza) of Israel can wait, but educating ourselves cannot.

gravenimage said

Remember the greenhouse plan, paid for in large part by American Jewish charitable efforts, to purchase Jewish settler greenhouses for Palestinians, so that they could get a good start on their peaceful and prosperous state?

I believe the aluminum frames from those donated greenhouses were ripped apart and used to construct Katyusha rockets that were then fired at the generous Israelis. Yet another lesson for infidels everywhere. Can we learn?

Bush, his subordinates and the Jew-hating State Department will learn eventually, possibly the hard way, that attempting to sacrifice Israel will not solve their problems related to the global jihad, and will not pacify their implacable Muslim enemies, but will only serve to further whet their already insatiable appetite for more kuffar blood.

I sincerely hope, for the sake of the American people, that all the rhetoric coming out of the White House is just that -- empty rhetoric, a political game played on an international scale, and that behind the scenes they are doing everything they can to help Israel survive, or at least they do not hinder its survival attempts, because the blessing and the curse still stand: "I will bless those that bless you, and those that curse you I will curse." If Bush and/or his successor choose poorly, they will incur the wrath of G-d and bring a terrible collective punishment upon all Americans.

US_infidel

I hope your prayers and mine for Israel are answered.

'-- from Muslim poster Naseem above'

Hang on, I thought Naseem was Ahmadi. So Naseem's not Muslim. Don't Muslims view Naseem and his/her/its ilk as just as bad if not worse than kuffar?

President Bush declared his desire for a "provisional" Palestinian state to be established by 2005 that was back in 2003. It's now 2007. Israel has left Gaza which was turned into a cesspool within months of "Palestinians" taking charge. There will never be a Palestinian state because Palestinians don't really want one. What they want is to conquer Israel and obtain the spoils of war as Allah taught them. They would rather do that then the hard work and heavy lifting of creating an nation as the Israelis and Americans have done.As long as Islam exists there will always be violence and terror and no peace wherever the followers of the prophet go. It's time to disengage from Islamic nations and end Muslim immigration to West. If Islam is really superior let Muslims fend for themselves without handouts, technology, food, medicine or any of the scientific miracles of the West.Lets see how well they do.I read article that suggested just that, that we forget the primitive Middle East. The fastest way to obtain the reformation of Islam is to force Muslim to actually have to live under Islam with no escape. Let Christians, Jews and Hindus, atheists ect immigrate to the West but NOT Muslims.

Dane: Naseem, or whomever is writing under that nom de plume at the moment, is a moonbat and not worth the effort to address.

For everyone else, from "Canada's national newspaper" filed today by their middle east correspondent:

Some Palestinians prefer life in Israel
In East Jerusalem, residents say they would fight a handover to Abbas regime
MARK MACKINNON

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

October 16, 2007 at 4:52 AM EDT

JERUSALEM — After 40 years of living under Israeli occupation, two stints in Israeli prisons and a military checkpoint on the same road as his odds-and-ends shop, one would think Nabil Gheit would be happy to hear an Israeli prime minister contemplate handing over parts of East Jerusalem to Palestinian control.

But the mayor of Ras Hamis, a Palestinian neighbourhood on the eastern fringe of this divided city, says that he can't think of a worse fate for him and his constituents than being handed over to the weak and ineffective Palestinian Authority right now.

"If there was a referendum here, no one would vote to join the Palestinian Authority," Mr. Gheit said, smoking a water pipe as he whiled away the afternoon watching Lebanese music videos. "We will not accept it. There would be another intifada [uprising] to defend ourselves from the PA."

Read it all: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071016.wmideastjerusalem16/BNStory/International/home

From the mouth of American Traitor "Dhimmy Jimmy" from "The Marketing of Evil" by David Kupelian

~~~
Like the Palestinian leadership, the other leaders of the Arab world care nothing for the Arab people who call themselves Palestinians – they care only for the destruction of Israel, which they hope the Palestinian cause will ultimately bring. As President Jimmy Carter confessed at a 1979 press conference, “I have never met an Arab leader that in private professes a desire for an Independent Palestinian state. Publicly, they all espouse an independent Palestinian state.”

~~~

Yes indeed, Sencit, let's wait for another disaster because America pushes Israel yet again!

Naseem said

The Amerike also should keep an eye on Iran & Iraq to ensure that the migration goes smoothly and without violence.

There need not be any migration. Allah has provided that Iran and Iraq are both Islamic countries; both have constitutions that are compatible with sharia. There are Sunni dominated areas and Shi'ite dominated areas, but Allah has provided them with the wisdom and tolerance to live together in peace with each other, as they have always done. The Muslim believers need not leave their Islamic wonderland and come to the defiled land of the depraved kaffirs. Allah will provide everything they need in their homeland. There is only corruption and temptation here. It is better not to come here where we occasionally accidentally touch Qur'ans, serve Jello to schoolchildren, draw cartoons, and actually ask Muslims to denounce terrorists. We also have male tv hosts.

There need not be any migration. In fact, the only migration may go in the other direction, Allah willing.

US infidel:

The Genesis blessing and curse do indeed still stand. Tony Blair (he of the perpetual grin and ghastly wife) is also out to make a name for himself in this regard.
May God be merciful to Britain and America!

"Will there be difficulties …ofcourse and peoples… many of them may die…, look at the history of the India-Pak partitition …where the lily livered British cut & ran & eh…”left them to it”
Posted by: Naseem

..THe US dhimmicrats want to do the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan.......Are you saying if the British had remained...that things would be better?.... In Iraq and Afghanistan Would chaos thrive if the infidels left the people to it?...

...yep...it is the Muslim way.....

Ban Muslim Immigration....

"Are you saying if the British had remained...that things would be better?"

Posted by: exsgtbrown

Just answering your question exsgtbrown. What she means is that the British just abandoned those areas (West Punjab (now pakistan) and East Bengal (now bangladesh). The troops were under order not to rescue and to leave the territories immediately. (They did the same thing in Israel in 1948). So when the muslims mobs came out with their knives and daggers, there was nobody policing the streets. It is a rough estimate that 1.5 million Hindus were brutally killed by muslim mobs in West Punjab, and about 1 million in East Bengal in 1947. (The exact number is not verifiable, and the bodycount shall double if one takes into consideration the number of Infidel women caught alive and taken into the harem ).There were some British troops that disobeyed orders and fired at the invading muslims and saved thousands of Hindus from certain death. Survivors of 1947 still pray for these Officers And Gentlemen.

...thanks for the history lesson....do politicians ever review history?.......(especially history involving Muslims)....the Muslim mob scene is what the world can expect to see once the infidels leave....

Muslims will be Muslims.....if any non Muslims can be killed...they will be...just look at the lands held by Muslims....the Non Muslims have just about been eliminated entirely....few remain alive for the time being....

history shows how Muslims act once they get the numbers...it is just one of the reasons to Ban Muslim Immigration....

2009 just can't get here fast enough.

Posted by: arjun.sevak [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 17, 2007 9:09 AM

Would you like to guest-post that history on my blog?

PRCalDude,
If you think it will help the anti-jihad effort, will be glad to. Right now am in a rush so could give only a fleeting look to your blog. Are you sure you want the details of the Partition of India ?