Curly, Moe, and Himmler
Naked moral equivalence, endorsed by Olmert, Bush, and -- of course -- Abbas.
Video here, of Bush reading from the joint statement.
Story here: "Mideast leaders vow 'new era of peace'"
And at FrontPage: "Moral Inversion at Annapolis," by P. David Hornik and "Palestinians: Aggressors, Not Victims," by David Meir-Levi.
Take a president with no understanding of the jihadist intransigence that fuels the Palestinian/Israel conflict -- not quibbles over the ownership of this or that piece of land -- who is desperate to shore up his sagging legacy. Take an Israeli prime minister who seems defiantly committed to the proposition that an Israel small enough and defenseless enough will be left alone by the jihadists, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. Add in a "Palestinian" leader who is threatened at home by forces even more violently intransigent than he is, and who is leader of a group that tried to assassinate that same Israeli prime minister just a few months ago -- indicating that he himself is either complicit or ineffectual.
What do you get? A peace based on the equation of jihad terrorist violence against innocent people with resistance to that violence. Not an auspicious beginning.
Peace In Our Time Alert.
How long till Abbas is vilified by the Arab media?
I think I'm about to be sick watching these three monkeys cavort under the Condi big-top.
Palestinians statements always make me think of my dog and bananas.
When you are eating a banana she thinks she wants it. It smells so good. She begs for it. But she hates the taste of them and never eats them, but spits them out and demands to be fed that thing that smells so good instead.
Being a Border Collie she is very smart but just can't seem to get that one thing worked out.
Please retract your insult to the 3 stooges.
Olmert can be compared to Quisling.
Bush is the equivalent of Molotov.
Until I came to this site I never fully understood why the Arabs didn't come to an understanding with Israel. The root of the problem is in the dogmas of I-slam: the Jews must be returned to their Dhimmi status in Dar-al-Islam or else I-slam is a lie. The truth is that if Israel consisted only of Mideast Jewish people who fled Muslim tolerance, the issue would still be the same. "Islam must dominate".
It's pretty clear that Bush is well past his expiration date. I guess some Presidents spoil faster than others.
I never thought I'd long for election day.
That's right. We all know how the Jewish media is filled with anti-Palestinian remarks, and how frequently the Jewish people go to the streets and chant "Death to Palestine". We all know that Jewish children are taught, from childhood, that Palestinians are apes and pigs, and not worthy of a nation. We all know that public school books in Israel are filled with anti-Palestinian remarks, and Jewish TV stations are loaded with programs calling for the destruction of "Palestine".
Right?
Oh, the humanity!!
Did you catch the photos of tens of thousands in the streets of Gaza and the tens of thousands in the streets of Israel and the wailers at the Wall.
And then the three guys in Annapolis with Condi lurking in the background.
It wins the most foolish photo-op award of the year!
Let's be fair. This peace push is fundamentally different than all that have gone before from Camp David to the Road map. This time there's not the faintest shred of hope of anything. There is not even a 'moment' or 'window of opportunity' to pretend to seize.
"That's right. We all know how the Jewish media is filled with anti-Palestinian remarks, and how frequently the Jewish people go to the streets and chant "Death to Palestine". We all know that Jewish children are taught, from childhood, that Palestinians are apes and pigs, and not worthy of a nation. We all know that public school books in Israel are filled with anti-Palestinian remarks, and Jewish TV stations are loaded with programs calling for the destruction of "Palestine".
Right?"
I fully agree that there is vile anti-Semitism/racism/all kinds of hatred in Muslim textbooks. But it's also wrong to imply that Arabs in Israel never, ever suffer discrimination. These incidents shouldn't be glossed over just to score points against Islam.
Ah, the pronouncements of the Munich conference.
Where never is heard, a discouraging word.
Hypocricy upon hypocricy.
A convocation of yesterdays people.
Yawn.
Another failed and useless conference for the history books.
Well finally Israel is going to stop all those Jewish suicide bombers blowing up Muslim school buses and discos.
Maybe they'll stop all those Jews from throwing rocks down on poor Muslims praying near the temple mount.
Then they'll to stop all those Jews forcing Christian priests to attend rallies advocating the conversion of the world to Judaism.
Then they'll stop all those Jews from ethnically cleansing the Christians from their historic hometowns of Ramallah and Bethlehem and putting those towns under strict Judaic law.
And maybe they'll stop all those Jewish "youth" from raping women who aren't dressed the way their religion requires.
And maybe, just maybe, those Israeli Jews will end polygamy and stop raising children to kill in the name of God.
Yeah, finally something is going to be done about Israeli terrorism.
Yeah finally....
STOP!!!!! Time for a REALITY CHECK here!
bush is utterly delusional, which has obvious implications not just for this "peace summit," but for the iraq war. As Pamela at Atlas pointed out last night, for bush to label any Israeli self-defense measures as terrorist acts means that U.S. soldiers are committing terrorist acts in iraq. i'm sorry, but this man is stupid beyond belief. And I voted for him -- twice. Ugh!
This is worse than Munich, where at least Chamberlain didn't have such an obvious historical precedent to guide him, as bush does here.
Poetcomic,
That is the beauty of this summit, there's no one even pretending that this ridiculous summit will lead to "peace".Most people see it for what it is, a photo-op and a waste of time and money.If Palestinians really wanted "peace" and a "homeland" that would have happened about two summits ago.
Olmert, Abbas vow to "confront terrorism...
Abbas will of course do nothing of the kind.
Taqiyya doggerel from the mottled mouth of Abbas, President of an acknowledged terror state, richly funded by Eurabia and the USA, of course.
Olmert can only confront Islamic Jihad war terror, it will be in self defense.
...whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis.
Equivalency. An ideological tool invented by Karl Marx.
All this adds up to basing an important treaty on a shared Fictive Reality.
It appears that Israel will go down, sooner or later, probably later. The timing is up to Prez Mahmoud.
Roxanne-
'If Palestinians really wanted "peace" and a "homeland" that would have happened about two summits ago.'
Two summits ago? How about 60 years ago!
I'm glad Robert brought that up...amidst the moral inversion which should be confronted, there's more to it, too...
note the article above linked as "moral inversion at Annapolis" it's noted that an ambassador from sudan is there...
at first I wondered why the hell would they invite them?...until I remembered a newslink that made the whole equation make more sense...
...It's reported that there will also be a peace conference in Russia soon, too...
...couple that with the conflicting definitions of "genocide" & "terrorism" between us and terror sponsoring nations...like the sudan...
...(not to mention the growing tensions between the increasingly paranoid-putin & his KGB-ridden government making their ridiculous accusations against the US)...
...and THEN there's THIS...
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/af_sudan_11_09.asp
...won't THAT look good at their copycat summit that is anything BUT a "peace conference".
(yes, the plane in question WAS rigged for bombing runs, and the crew was Russian).
...OR at iran's even lamer copycat pseudo-"peace conference" that will also be anything but...
So when the terrorists who claim they're not try to redefine, they get effective baklash
If the Russians try to pull anything, well...looks like they & their lackeys...ooops, I mean allies, won't be able to make any more bogus accusations of the west anymore.
Like I said...a grand chess game playin' out, and the stakes are extremely high...and since no agreement has been signed as far as hardcore commitment, this hasn't even begun to play out.
No wonder the terrorists and their SCO masters aren't happy at all at this...especially since they're planning on pretending to host "peace conferences" of their own, now amidst increasingly revealing hypocrisy of THEIR own...
NOW, this seemingly irrational conference is beginning to make sense why it took place...it's not a peace conference...it's an ultimatum, and the main targets aren't the Israelis after all.
They're playing along...as the bait.
Stratagem,
artifice,
Classic Sun Tzu.
Excellent (and about damned time we started playin'em at their own game now).
There was no such thing as an independence-aspiring Arab Palestinian people 60 years ago.
At best, you can talk about 40 years ago and even then:
No lessons learned.
Well, Olmert won't have any problem stopping "Israeli terrorism". What's Abbas" excuse for failing to stop palestinian terrorism?
Once this phony baloney conference is over and nothing of substance is accomplished Abbas will whine at how a deal was possible but for Israeli pigheadedness. That will be his rationale when his henchman commence to do what they do best-commit acts of terrorism.
Has anyone seen this yet, amidst the seemingly pointless conference?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546745789&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
odd to have such a conference within a conference.
;-)
The Palestinian identity may be a constructed one (so, incidentally, is "Israeli"), but that does not diminish its reality for the people who claim it. When you're told for so long that you don't exist (Golda Meir et al), eventually your response is to say, "Yes, we do."
Jcom - interesting take.
There was no such thing as an independence-aspiring Arab Palestinian people 60 years ago.
Really? There were at least some non-Palestinian Arabs for whom Palestinian independence was an aspiration in 1945, when the Coventant of the Arab League stated: "Even though Palestine was not able to control her own destiny, it was on the basis of the recognition of her independence that the Covenant of the League of Nations determined a system of government for her. Her existence and her independence among the nations can, therefore, no more be questioned de jure than the independence of any of the other Arab States... Therefore, the States signatory to the Pact of the Arab League consider that in view of Palestine's special circumstances, the Council of the League should designate an Arab delegate from Palestine to participate in its work until this country enjoys actual independence."
Not to mention in 1948, when the Arab League stated, upon the establishment of the State of Israel: "The Governments of the Arab States recognize that the independence of Palestine, which has so far been suppressed by the British Mandate, has become an accomplished fact for the lawful inhabitants of Palestine. They alone, by virtue of their absolute sovereignty, have the right to provide their country with laws and governmental institutions. They alone should exercise the attributes of their independence, through their own means and without any kind of foreign interference, immediately after peace, security, and the rule of law have been restored to the country. At that time the intervention of the Arab states will cease, and the independent State of Palestine will cooperate with the (other member) States of the Arab League in order to bring peace, security and prosperity to this part of the world. The Governments of the Arab States emphasize, on this occasion, what they have already declared before the London Conference and the United Nations, that the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, (and whereby) minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognized in democratic constitutional countries and (whereby) the holy places will be preserved and the rights of access thereto guaranteed."
Only one peson who is not an idiot in that lovely photo.
. . . and his name does not start with an "O" nor a "B"
. . . and this non-idiot is not too concerned about "terrorism and incitement" committed by Israelis.
He is--or should be, if he is not--be very concerned about what his "Palestinian" Hamas "brothers" will do in the "territories" (Judea and Samaria) occupied by Arabs (Moslems), who are not as erroneously thought by some the "original" or indigenous" inhabitants of the land, but Arabs who had swarmed in there from all over the Arab world.
Nothing has changed since 1947 when the Jews were offered approximately 12% of the original British Mandate and accepted it as enough. Some 77% of the Mandate had already been siphoned off to create what is now Jordan (the true Palestinian state) and the other 11% or so was given to the Arabs to create yet another Arab country (not one of which would have come into being but for Allied defeat of the Ottoman Empire during WWI) existing alongside a small Jewish state. But no, the Arab position was we get everything and the Jews get nothing. That still remains the position of the Arab world to this day, this theater-of-the-absurd Annapolis Peace Conference notwithstanding.
And for all those, like Roobart Sbunsar, who insist on moral equivalency thinking, the wonder of it all to me is that the Jews have been as lenient and understanding as they have towards the Arabs within the control of the Israeli state. Israeli-Arabs enjoy more freedoms than do the Arabs of any Arab country (although this still doesn't stop way too many people who should know better from focusing on the minor discriminations that Israeli-Arabs endure, which are nugatory compared to the many life-threatening restrictions placed on the average Arab in Arab countries). And so-called Palestinian Arabs, who are moderate, have far more to fear from fellow Arabs who are filled with hate for Israel than they do from the Israelis. As the old joke goes, if you're a Palestinian Arab and you hear a knock on your door in the middle of the night, you hope it's the Israelis. And as Alan Dershowitz (normally not someone I invoke) has said, the single greatest guarantor of justice for the Arab throughout the Middle East is the Israeli Supreme Court. How true. Grasp this essential fact and so much else falls into place, not that the obtuse moral equivalizers will ever understand the wisdom of Dershowitz's observation.
Some 77% of the Mandate had already been siphoned off to create what is now Jordan (the true Palestinian state)
This percentage only holds if you assume that every bit of land subsequently governed by the Emirate of Transjordan (later the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) had constituted part of the Mandate before Transjordan was carved out of it. I've never seen a contemporary map of Palestine before the carve-out that showed the Mandate as extending much farther east than Amman. It certainly wasn't considered to include all those miles of desert stretching eastward toward Iraq that were later included in Transjordan.
Seamus:
In 1948, "Plestinian" referred to JEWS-- not arabs.
In the article linked by Jcom there was a little sentence about the Syrians and their demands for the return of the Golan Heights. Apparently that is the only reason Syria sent someone.
If Bush starts presuring Israel to return this very important piece of tactical and strategic real estate to Syria, then there is strong evidence that there is some malevolence in what Bush is doing.
All the indications are that Bush desperately wants an agreement before he leaves office. He has the same egocentric personality that infected Clinton and Carter. They all want that placque presented by the dynamite inventor's estate.
Alfred Nobel's psyche was so fragile, and he was so vain that he tried to buy his way into heaven by funding that stupid prize.
Nothing has changed since 1947 when the Jews were offered approximately 12% of the original British Mandate and accepted it as enough.
The 12% figure relies on the incorrect percentage I referred to above. In fact, the 1947 UN partition plan assigned 56% of Palestine (excluding Transjordan) to the Jewish state, even though the Jews only constituted about one third of the population.
Abscedere, I'm going to steal a line from Jeff Dunham and Walter. Bush is aging like milk.
Seamus: Never seen a map with virtually all of what is now Jordan as part of what was carved out of the British Mandate in the 1920s? I have. As an example, consult Yahya Armajani's Middle East: Past and Present on page 305 for just such a map. By the way, I would ask you this question, if all that desert region east of Amman stretching to Iraq wasn't included in the original British Mandate, just what was it included in? Best regards.
Thanks dgene,
if you can equate diplomacy (despite the diploginaling BS) and the MSM reporting...
it's compared to an iceberg...
what you see & hear is only about 10% of what ALL is going on underneath the waves. (hope that helps).
Pelayo,
good point...glad ya brought it up...since the Golan WAS actually offered BY Israel TO syria not long ago (1-2 years ago?)...only catch was a peace treaty with Israel. syria rejected it out of hand (revealing their true aims)...so now, suddenly now, they bring it up as a condition to attendance (which causes conflicting views of their position vs what happened before, exposing their conflict-of-interest to the world in the end), when they could've had a done deal already (you get the idea).
A lot of "cards" haven't even been played yet...so let's see how it plays out-it's barely gotten started. (but as always, keep an eye on it, too).
It's why "cautiously hopeful" is stressed vs blind optimism...
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Bush_Cautious_Middle_East/2007/11/26/52281.html
("caution" "cautiouslt hopeful" are major buzzwords that they're well aware of the perils of going into it blindly...hope that helps).
@Seamus
I don't know were you are getting your data. But it flat out contradicts what is covered in the LINK this thread started. It is long (only read about a third so far), but it has references and links to other reports and data. So if you will provide independent links to what you say I will assume you are revising history.
That by the way is what the LINK talks about. Now here is something that is not revisionist. It is called the Abrahamic Covenent. Some of it is quoted below. This happened a few thousand years before your alleged meetings and conferences.
Gen 13:14-17
And the LORD said unto Abram (Abraham), after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, [then] shall thy seed also be numbered. Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.
جن 13:14-17
وقال اللورد ILA ابرام (ابراهيم) ، وبعد ان تم فصلها عن الكثير منه ، وانتشال الآن ذين العيون ، والبحث عن المكان الذي أنت شمالا ، وجنوبا ، وشرقا وغربا : لجميع الارض التي انت ترى ، لأني لك سوف تعطيه ، وخاصتك البذور الى الابد. وسابدي خاصتك البذور كما تراب الأرض : حتى لو ان رجلا يمكن ان عدد تراب الأرض ، [ثم] خاصتك البذور ايضا معدوده. تنشأ ، من خلال المشي الارض في طول وانها في اتساع عليه ؛ لانها لن اعطي ILA اليك.
Thanks dgene,
if you can equate diplomacy (despite the diploginaling BS) and the MSM reporting...
it's compared to an iceberg...
what you see & hear is only about 10% of what ALL is going on underneath the waves. (hope that helps).
Pelayo,
good point...glad ya brought it up...since the Golan WAS actually offered BY Israel TO syria not long ago (1-2 years ago?)...only catch was a peace treaty with Israel. syria rejected it out of hand (revealing their true aims)...so now, suddenly now, they bring it up as a condition to attendance (which causes conflicting views of their position vs what happened before, exposing their conflict-of-interest to the world in the end), when they could've had a done deal already (you get the idea).
A lot of "cards" haven't even been played yet...so let's see how it plays out-it's barely gotten started. (but as always, keep an eye on it, too).
It's why "cautiously hopeful" is stressed vs blind optimism...
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Bush_Cautious_Middle_East/2007/11/26/52281.html
("caution" "cautiouslt hopeful" are major buzzwords that they're well aware of the perils of going into it blindly...hope that helps).
Seamus,
If you look at the 1905 Encyclopedia Brittanica, it defines "Palestinian" as "a Jew, Christian, or Samaritan native to the Holy Land. Palestine is also defined as also having a "substantial population of Arab and Turkish Moslems."
It was only on the advice of his Nazi advisors in the late 1930s, that the Grand Mufti started to co-opt the Palestinian identity for political purposes. Even in Leon Uris' "Exodus" there is a character called "The Palestinian" meaning he was a native-born Jew since no Muslims were considered Palestinians at the time.
Yes there are real Palestinians, namely the Christian populations indigenous to Bethlehem, Ramallah and the Galil, as well as Samaritans and the old Jewish communities of Jerusalem, Safed and other places. This historical designation would also include those Jews that were driven out of their homes in Hebron and Jericho. Sadly, the rights of these real Palestinians are not being discussed.
Bush is not the first, nor the last president to be led down the false path of peace when it involves Israel and the muslim states. I personally believe it's symptomatic of our culture and history. Throughout our history education we are taught about the various compromises that our leaders have made to pass legislation. So our leaders naturally believe that if everyone compromises than something good will come out of it. Two of the most known compromises in our history, "The Great Compromise" and the "Missouri Compromise" both sound great but definitely fall short. The only good the Great Compromise did was to allow the Constitution to be passed, but never truly dealt with slavery other than how to count the slaves for the census. The Missouri Compromise did even less, it just further exacerbated the slavery issues that eventually lead to Civil War. There is a time to compromise and a time to hold fast. In regards to the muslims, now is the time to hold fast. But until the State Department bureaucrats are either replaced or have a mass epiphany, compromise will still be the game. One also must add the culture of the offended and their natural response to remarks they are "offended" by. No politician today is willing to be called a racist, islamophobe, etc. But all is not lost, just as the people effected the last vote on immigration reform to kill the atrocity that Congress and the President attempted to pass, I feel that we can also affect the politicians stance, provided we can effectively let them know that they will be backed-up.
While this may work on the homefront, on the world stage nothing will be accomplished until the very nature of islam can be openly and freely examined. As long as there are those unwilling to open their minds in regards to their religion, there will be no peace in the middle east.
Who is currently president of the United States of America?
If you read Leon Uris' book The Haj he makes the same point that it was the Jews not Arab Muslims who were first called Palestinians.David Meir-Levi in his article in yesterdays Frontpage Magazine Palestinians:Aggressors, Not Victims makes the same point.The term "Palestinian" was taken from the Jews. Todays Palestinians are a manufactured people.
"Todays Palestinians are a manufactured people."
So are Israelis--they did not exist until 1948.
Seamus: Never seen a map with virtually all of what is now Jordan as part of what was carved out of the British Mandate in the 1920s? I have. As an example, consult Yahya Armajani's Middle East: Past and Present on page 305 for just such a map.
And when was that map created? No earlier than 1923, I'll wager.
I don't know were you are getting your data.
Try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181
FYI:
http://mosquewatch.blogspot.com/2007/09/michael-savage-radical-islam.html
And here is the results of someone speaking the truth:
"OFFICEMAX DROPS MICHAEL SAVAGE ADS OVER ANTI-ISLAM BIAS (WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/15/2007) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today announced that OfficeMax, a leading office products retailer, has joined a growing list of companies that have stopped advertising on Michael Savage's nationally-syndicated radio program because of the host's anti-Muslim views."
Please Call OfficeMax As Soon As Possible
www.actforamerica
This summer I came into possession of a Webster's New World Dictionary Second College Edition copyright 1970 thru 1984.
Palestine 1. region on the E coast of the Mediterranean, the country of the Jews in Biblical times 2.Brit. mandated territory in this region, west of the Jordan River from 1923 to the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 by the United Nations
Gosh, it just seems like the other day that we still
had a clear picture of things in this country. Before our educational system got taken over by apologists.
...Michael Savage?
"MICHAEL SAVAGE: So you're one of those sodomists. Are you a sodomite?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I am.
MICHAEL SAVAGE: Oh, you're one of the sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage. You have got nothing to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it. Get trichinosis.
OK, do we have another nice caller here who's busy because he didn't have a nice night in the bathhouse who's angry at me today? Get me another one, put another sodomite on. No more calls out of-- let's go to the next scene. I don't care about these bums. They mean nothing to me. They're all sausages. Next scene; onto the next scene on the Savage Nation."
...THAT Michael Savage?
It was only on the advice of his Nazi advisors in the late 1930s, that the Grand Mufti started to co-opt the Palestinian identity for political purposes.
Well, at least you aren't arguing (as some on this site have) that the Arabs weren't claiming to be "Palestinians" until after the Six-Day War.
But in fact, the Arabs had formed a "Palestinian National Congress" as early as 1919. In 1920, former mayor of Jerusalem Musa Kazin al-Husseini said: "Now, after the recent events in Damascus [i.e., the French deposition of King Feisel], we must introduce a basic change in our plans here. [The idea of Palestins as] southern Syria no longer exists. We must defend Palestine." So a Palestinian Arab nationalism existed at least that early.
The Mufti is an interesting character. I read an account of his meeting with Hitler--which was, to say the least, bizarre.
This was a bad dude--and Arafat considered him a hero. Go figure.
By the way, I would ask you this question, if all that desert region east of Amman stretching to Iraq wasn't included in the original British Mandate, just what was it included in?
It wasn't included in anything. It was just called part of "Arabia," which wasn't an actual state (but included, for example, the Nejd). See, e.g., this map:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/trade_routes.jpg
Seamus: First of all I want to thank you for pointing out this particular matter to me. Second, I think it possible, after a little research in my library over the last couple of hours, to argue we both are right depending on how one wishes to interpret the ambiguity before us (and how fitting we have yet another matter of dispute considering we're dealing with the Middle East). The most pertinent reference I could find comes from Mark Tessler's A History Of The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, published by Indiana University Press in 1994. The relevant passage I'm referring to, found on page 164, goes as such:
"Boundaries became fixed in the years after the war. The mandate awarded to Britain at San Remo in 1920 included Transjordan, and it was sometimes [though not always] referred to specifically as the Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan. On the other hand, the mandatory charter ratified by the League of Nations in July 1922 appears to regard the separate political identity of Transjordan as still in the future. In this connection, Article 25 refers to 'territories lying between the Jordan River and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined.'"
I think you can see here why some have incorporated Transjordan (all of it, including it seems even the Amman area) as not part of Palestine while others have concluded it was all part of the British Mandate of Palestine and was certainly not part of British Iraq. In any case, and irrespective of the boundaries, my primary point remains the same and that is that the Arab world has never been prepared to compromise and allow for even the smallest Jewish state. Arabs are to get countries and the Jews not even one, even though for five hundred years or more the Arabs did virtually nothing to establish their own political entities divorced from the Ottoman Empire. And I am convinced the root cause of this is Islam, which thinks territorially (dar-al-Islam and all that rubbish) in a way no other major religion does. If 95% of the Arab world were Christian, Buddhist, Zoroastrian or Hindu, 95% of the mess in the Middle East would not exist. Again, best regards.
So if you will provide independent links to what you say I will assume you are revising history.
You can assume all you like, but if you want to call me a liar, I'd advise you to STFU unless you have some evidence.
Links to my quotations from the Arab League can be found here:
http://www.mideastweb.org/arableague.htm
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/alpart.html
RoobartSbunsar, they used to be called Judaens, perhaps, but then the Romans came, follwed by the Ottomans. Finally the League of Nations finally screwed things up.
"RoobartSbunsar, they used to be called Judaens, perhaps, but then the Romans came, follwed by the Ottomans. Finally the League of Nations finally screwed things up."
Thank you for that. I wasn't trying to insult anyone--my point was only that "Israeli," in the modern sense of the world, is indeed a constructed identity, as is "Palestinian." Constructed identities are quite valid in this instance, but I don't think it's correct to say--as some still do--that there's no such thing as "Palestinians." If anything, we only reinforce their sense of identity AS Palestinians by making such claims (if one is told long enough that "you don't exist," sooner or later you reply "yes, we do.") If the powers that be have ackowledged them as such, then they do exist, whatever we may think.
Aunt Bea, The decline of the quality of American education can be traced to the formation of the US Depertment of Education. This was an election promise from His Majesty James E. Carter. Of all the promises he failed ot keep, he kept this one.
"Boundaries became fixed in the years after the war. The mandate awarded to Britain at San Remo in 1920 included Transjordan, and it was sometimes [though not always] referred to specifically as the Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan. On the other hand, the mandatory charter ratified by the League of Nations in July 1922 appears to regard the separate political identity of Transjordan as still in the future. In this connection, Article 25 refers to 'territories lying between the Jordan River and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined.'"
I think this supports my point. It indicates that, at the time Transjordan was carved out of the Palestine mandate, the eastern boundaries of that mandate were undetermined, when means it is highly misleading to suggest that Transjordan was given anything like 77% of the entire territory of the mandate, as understood at the time of that carve-out.
In fact, the eastern boundaries of Transjordan were not laid down until a 1925 agreement between Transjordan and the Nejd, the 1928 Transjordan Nationality Law (which unilaterally defined the border with Iraq), and a 1932 agreement between Iraq and Transjordan.
See:
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS060.pdf
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS098.pdf
If 95% of the Arab world were Christian, Buddhist, Zoroastrian or Hindu, 95% of the mess in the Middle East would not exist.
Well, we know as a matter of historical fact that the Hindus were only with difficulty made to acquiesce in the partition of their land to provide a state to Moslems who had lived there for several centuries. I think we can be fairly certain that if they had been asked to partition their land to provide a state for Jews who had only immigrated in the previous *decades*, they'd have told anyone making that proposal to take a hike.
And to think we have fourteen more months of Israel badgering ahead of us.
Why doesn't the fool just quit and let Cheney serve the remainder of his term?
Eureka, I have figured it all out.
Appalachians of the world unite.
I demand a state for all Appalachians, I was born in Appalachia and I demand that all those Damn Yankee transplants go back to Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, or wherever else they came from. The only legitimate Appalachians are those inhabitanst who can trace their ancestry back to Appalachia before the ratification of that evil Zionist inspired constitution thingy.
If Arabs in a geographical region called Palestine can call themselves Palestinians, I can call myself an Applachian. Now, everybody else get out.
Buy the way , I know a guy who claims that he was was 14 tears old before he learned that Damnyankee was two words.
Does Hamas know that there will be peace? I think I heard one of them screaming something like 'peace smeace', we are going to take over the Left Bank.
Yep, peace. I bet it won't be too long till we read that the exiled, fugitive Abbas, will be welcome with open arms by Hugo. As long as Abu Mazen brings lots of cash, or gold bars with him, Hugo will put him up and protect him. I suspect that someday Venezuala will be the new Mecca for deposed muslim leaders, and rich fugitives. Hugo will personally help them with their luggage.
Did you notice that Hamas, and Hugo both start with the letter 'H', so does 'homeboy'. Don't you think that is just a little too coincidental?
And Kim...14 months is plenty of time for Bush to proclaim himself King. We better get used to saying, 'God bless the King', or 'Long live the King'. Men will have to bow, and women will have to curtsy, and everyone must refer to him as 'Your Majesty', or 'Your Highness'. The only question is, will he be a benevolent king, or a ruthless maniac. You don't have to answer that. I am sure you already know...have a good day/eve/night, wherever you are...
Also, I reserve the right to determine the boundaries of Appalachia,
I know that my argument for Appalachia ignores the American Indian inhabitants, but I'm making the rules. Now, leave and don't let the door bump you in the butt on the way out.
I think I'll rename it Appalachistine. Then the lucky inhabitants will be Appalachistinians.
Appalachia actually includes part of Pennsylvania and Ohio, but I taking poetic license.
Seamus: Again, thanks for your comments. Well, I think what I quoted supports my contention, especially when one looks at the configuration of Transjordan by the end of 1923. For instance, in the Tessler book I quoted from on page 166 he has a map of the area in 1923 which shows Transjordan, already separated by the British from Palestine (rest of?) as having its present borders (including the strange northeastern block area of said country), irrespective of border disputes resolved with other Arab political entities in the immediate years to follow. Now, excluding the British Mandate of Iraq, there was only one other British Mandate in that area. Notice that we're not talking here in the plural, i.e., Mandates. Therefore, by the end of 1923, AT THE LATEST, according to numerous maps I have in my very library, you have the configuration of Jordan (Transjordan) as it is today. It is logical and arguable then that the British Mandate (again in the singular) for that area should be treated as the unity it was and then my original percentage of some 77% of the British Mandate of Palestine (or whatever you want to call it) became what is now Jordan.
Your comparison of the Middle East to that of India is faulty because Jews have never ceased to live in the area of what is now Israel. As Alan Dershowitz pointed out in his fine polemical tome, The Case for Israel, Jerusalem itself has never ceased to be a city whose majority has always been Jewish, with the possible exception of the period from the late first century A.D. well into the second century A.D., i.e., during the time of the First and Second Jewish Revolts. The Muslims in India were indeed intruders, and wonderfully destructive of Hindu and Buddhist societies and artifacts in the process. When have Jews been destructive of Muslim societies and artifacts? Analogies must be done carefully. I have no doubt you're a thoughtful person, but not here I'm afraid. Besides, do you really doubt that if 95% of Arabs were Hindu, you would still have the tragedy which is the Middle East today? Give me Hindus over Muslims any day of the week.
And the Liberals that I constantly debate at my current University refuse to accept my statement that conservatives don’t recognize Bush as one of their own, that we are disgusted with him.
But, the President is not just a horribly ignorant person. He is also delusional. There is not a chance on earth that the Nobel Peace Committee will ever give him the prize he covets.
Patagonianplato, did you get this Nobel Prize idea from me? I pulled that from the deep recesses of my, er, uh, . . . mind.
Pelayo
It came to me quite independently. In fact, it seemed rather obvious.
I had not read any of the comments when I posted mine. You certainly did mention this before me.
I got the idea from some statements about getting a deal before Bush's term expires. It sounded all too familiar.
I see this summit as being the wedge that splits the Fissures in Islam wide open. Iran having a pity party with it's demented offspring and the Cave man of Pakistan making noise and Riots once again in France all add up to, once again. Un-peaceful Muslims seeking to have their Sway.
I think they want a War. In the worst way. A crazy kind of Blood lust for it. We need to be prepared to make sure they die regretting their desires.
Seamus,
Musa Kazin al-Husseini was the uncle of Haj Amin al-Husseini. He was appointed Mayor of Jerusalem by the Ottomans. The Husseini family were actually from the Hejaz in Arabia. It was their service to the Turks that made the al-Husseinis one of the two prominent Muslim families in Palestine. The other being the al-Nashashibi family, also of Arabian origin.
Before Musa Kazin al-Husseini was appointed mayor of Jerusalem he had served as the district Governor of Yemen. Had he still been in Aden when the Ottoman Empire collapsed, he probably would have declared himself a Yemeni and sought independence there. So it is clear that the designation of their organization as the Palestine National Congress in 1919 was strictly geographic.
Incidently, around the same time, the Jewish Communist Party based in Jaffa renamed itself the "Palestine Communist Party". It was made up completely of Jews and a few local Christian fellow-travellers.
Why doesn't the fool just quit and let Cheney serve the remainder of his term?
Posted by: Kim Hartveld at November 28, 2007 5:57 PM
That is wishful thinking, isn't it? But that is not what Bush is in White House for.. He is not there to quit. Else, why would he "win" in his brother's state? Why would he hide his amnesty plans (wrapped up in "immigration reform")? Why would he even run the second term. Infact I'll bet he would run as many terms as allowed to. Because that is what politics is. It gives a strong cntrol over the largest resources on earth. people and wealth! Once at in the White House, the president / commander-in-chief can do whatever he/she wishes and not just in national interest but contrary to it also. How else would you esplain:
- Illegal immigrnats potrayed as "workers"?
- Help Bin-Laden family escape right after 9/11?
- AID to Saudi Arabia?
and many more..
Point is, "the fool" is no fool. He and his famly has enriched off of tax-payers wealth and American lives to protect their extended family in Riyadh and Kuwait. That was made possible by occupying the White House. And you ask "Why doesn't the fool just quit" ?
But, the President is not just a horribly ignorant person. He is also delusional. There is not a chance on earth that the Nobel Peace Committee will ever give him the prize he covets.
Posted by: patagonianplato at November 28, 2007 7:23 PM
The "delusional" president/commander-in-chief:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5SY0gibGRk
And just following on from Provoslavni's latest post above: re the Al-Husseinis and the al-Nashashibis.
The so-called great "Arab revolt" of the 1930s began with the Arab Muslims attacking the British and attacking the Jews.
But it rapidly devolved into clan warfare between the Al-Husseinis and Al-Nashashibis, with the former essentially taking out the latter. I remember reading - sorry I can't give the precise source, right at the moment - that by the end of the 'revolt' more Arab Muslims in 'Palestine' had been killed by other Arab Muslims, than were killed by British law enforcers OR by the Jews defending themselves. (Does that remind anyone here of other, similar scenarios that we have observed in the last couple of years?).
Incidentally: to kill stone dead any romantic illusions about the Bedouin Arabs in and around 'Palestine', I call as witness Ion L Idriess, who fought there in the campaign against the Turks in 1916-1917. He calls the Bedouin Muslim Arabs "the ghouls of the battlefield".
They spied for the Turks and betrayed them to the British; they spied for the British and betrayed them to the Turks (which suggests to me that the Arab Muslim contempt both for Infidels and for non-Arab Muslims was about equal). And any soldier left wounded on the battlefield, be he Turk or Infidel, would be pounced on by Bedouin human jackals, murdered, and robbed. They habitually desecrated and robbed the graves of newly buried soldiers, whether Turk or British/ Allied. The Australian soldiers universally despised them, and were both amazed and angered by the English insistence on coddling and accommodating such horrible people. (It seems that the English love affair with the Muslim Arab sheikh goes way, way back - Prince Charles is the latest and most egregious example of this foolish infatuation).
Kevin,
I have often been puzzled by the American Presidents' passion for attempting to make peace in the Middle East - after all, they're not exactly obsessed with arbitrating between China and Tibet, or other grumpy nations.
I am firmly convinced that it is the Holy Grail of achievement, the impossible dream that if they achieve it, they will be declared the best, the coolest, the most amazing guy in the WORLD!
Shame they don't understand the true impetus behind the battle.
I am dreaming of a President who doesn't have the need to have himself photographed between the Israeli leader and the paleo taqiyya master of the hour.
WTH happens when a guy moves into the Whitehouse? Sudden urges to make Israel commit suicide...happens every time. I really thought Bush was going to support Israel, instead it's the same tired BS.
Musa Kazin al-Husseini was the uncle of Haj Amin al-Husseini. He was appointed Mayor of Jerusalem by the Ottomans. The Husseini family were actually from the Hejaz in Arabia. It was their service to the Turks that made the al-Husseinis one of the two prominent Muslim families in Palestine. The other being the al-Nashashibi family, also of Arabian origin.
Please explain how this has anything to do with my point that Mayor al-Husseini was advocating for Palestinian nationalism by 1920, and that it is an error to suggest that Arabs didn't assert a Palestinian identify before the late 1930s.
(Oh, yes, and a factual correction: according to Wikipedia, he was named mayor of Jerusalem in 1918, which means after the Ottomans had lost the city.)
Wellington:
While Tessler's book may purport to show the boundaries of Transjordan in 1923, the fact is that his book was published in 1994; I submit that his map is not a fair representation of what people in 1923 thought of as the eastern boundaries of Palestine/Transjordan. I have already provided a link to a map that was actually published *in* 1923, and it shows the eastern boundaries of the Palestine mandate (including Jordan) extending nowhere near as far east:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/trade_routes.jpg
My 1922 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica states (vol. xxxii, p. 655) that the border of Syria with "Arabia" ran "from Nasib to Imtar and thence in a straight line to Abu Kemal on the Euphrates." The fact that Syria even *had* a border with Arabia indicates that neither Palestine nor Transjordan extended as far as Iraq/Mesopotamia. So I think the conclusion still holds that, while Transjordan certainly extended that far eventually, it didn't do so while it was part of Palestine.
(By the way, the same Encyclopaedia (vol. xxxii, p. 762) says that the borders of the Emirate of "Transjordania" extend merely "eastwards to the desert," which again suggests something far short of stretching out to what is now Iraq.)
Your comparison of the Middle East to that of India is faulty because Jews have never ceased to live in the area of what is now Israel.
Are you really suggesting that, if the ancestral home of the Jews had been in the Punjab rather than in Palestine, and if the Jews had "never ceased to live" there (albeit in small numbers, until a return movement had begun around 1880), that the Hindus would have been more accepting of partition of India to create a Jewish state than they were of partition to create a Mohammedan state? I think that very unlikely, since they didn't even support the partition of Palestine itself. (India voted against partition, both as a member of the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine and as a member of the General Assembly.)
Besides, I don't see what bearing that fact really has on the right to carve out an independent state. Mexicans have "never ceased to live in the area of what is now" Texas, but I still oppose the idea that massive numbers of Mexicans should be permitted to enter Texas, then partition it to create a new independent state of Aztlan. Hell, Basques have "never ceased to live in" the Basque Provinces, but I don't think that gives them a right to unilaterally carve out an independent Basque state, and they'd have even less of such a right if they were only a third of the population of the Basque Provinces, as the Jews were a third of the population of Palestine in 1947.
Incidently, around the same time, the Jewish Communist Party based in Jaffa renamed itself the "Palestine Communist Party". It was made up completely of Jews and a few local Christian fellow-travellers.
So what? At about the same time, the South African Communist Party was formed, with an almost exclusively white membership, and with the slogan ""Workers of the world, unite and fight for a white South Africa!" Does that mean that blacks didn't think of themselves as South Africans?
Wellington:
I'm afraid I must revise my opinion. Intrigued by the Encyclopaedia Britannica's reference to the border between Syria and "Arabia" being defined by the Nasib-Imtar-Abu Kemal line, I Googled those names, and came up with the Anglo-French agreement which defined that line:
http://www.therightroadtopeace.com/infocenter/Heb/FrancoBritishConv.html
According to this agreement, the boundary so defined was between Syria and the British "mandates," meaning Palestine and Mesopotamia. That still doesn't settle the question of how far east Palestine was to extend, and I think it's still fanciful to claim, with anything like the precision that the number "77%" implies, that at the time Transjordan was carved out of Palestine, it was understood to stretch as far as the border that was defined in 1928 and 1932.
Provoslavni:
Of course, you would be right if you were to point out to me that, shortly afterwards, the South African Communist Party began recruiting black members, but it's just as true that the Palestine Communist Party (formed by the merger of the Palestinian Communist Party and the Communist Party of Palestine) almost simultaneously started recruiting Arab members (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Communist_Party ).
Seamus,
The key difference is what the historical definition of a particular people actually is. Before the al-Hussienis began their attempt to take control of the territory of western Palestine after WWI, the Muslims there identified themselves as "Arabs" or "Turks". Only Jews and Christians considered themselves to be uniquely Palestinian.
Even today many Hamas leaders often declare that there is no Palestinian people only the Muslim Umma. Before that, secularists such as Nasser declared often that there was only one "Arab Nation" and that Palestine was part of it. Again, only Jews and indigenous Christians saw their nationhood as tied specifically to the land of Palestine.
The key difference is what the historical definition of a particular people actually is. Before the al-Hussienis began their attempt to take control of the territory of western Palestine after WWI, the Muslims there identified themselves as "Arabs" or "Turks".
Big deal. Even today, I suspect most of the inhabitants of Cyprus think of themselves as "Greeks" or as "Turks" rather than as Cypriots. (There may be a Cypriot "state," but certainly no Cypriot "nation.") Does that justify the unilateral partition of the country in 1974 by the Turks, against the will of the majority of the country's inhabitants?
Seamus,
It is interesting that you chose Cyprus as an example. Cyprus is Greek in history, language, culture, and ethnicity. In fact Turkey invaded Cyprus precisely because they thought the majority of Cypriots were about to opt for "enosis" i.e. union with Greece.
Actually Turkey itself, like the idea of Muslim Palestine is also an artificial construct. Just as the Muslim invaders conquered Palestine and overwhelmed the original Jewish and Christian Palestinian identity, the Muslim Turks conquered Greek Anatolia and Thrace to build Turkey.
People of real Turkish ancestry like the Uzbeks and Kazakhs look nothing like the Turks of Anatolia who are physically identical to Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians and other people of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean background. That's because the original Christian inhabitants of Anatolia were conquered, forcibly converted to Islam, and had Turkish language and culture forced on them.
Likewise the Christians and Jews of Palestine all spoke Aramaic until well after the Islamic conquest, when Arabic was forced on the original inhabitants by the Arabian newcomers. Despite this conquest, the Palestinian Christians and Jews held on to their faiths and in the late 1800s the Jews successfully revived Hebrew as a spoken language.
Since I have both Palestinian Christians and Mizrahi Jews in my family, and being active in a majority Palestinian Christian Church, I come from a very different perspective than many other posters here. I am, in fact, a strong supporter of Palestinian Nationalism. However my nationalism is for the real Palestinians and not for the Muslim invaders.
It is interesting that you chose Cyprus as an example. Cyprus is Greek in history, language, culture, and ethnicity. In fact Turkey invaded Cyprus precisely because they thought the majority of Cypriots were about to opt for "enosis" i.e. union with Greece.
Exactly. Greek Cypriots don't so much think of themselves as Cypriots as they think of themselves as Greeks (just as, it is alleged, Arab Palestinians didn't use to think of themselves as Palestinians so much as they thought of themselves as Syrians or Arabs). But that's no reason to conclude that Greek Cypriots have no attachment to their land, or that it's OK to partition Cyprus (much less to displace the Greek Cypriots) against the will of the majority, on the ground that their "real" homeland is Greece (the way the "real" homeland of the Palestinian Arabs is alleged to be Transjordan, or Syria, or even Arabia).
Seamus,
The real homeland of Cypriot Greeks is still Cyprus since Cyprus has been Greek for millenia. A more accurate comparison is to the Greek cities of Smyrna and Constantinople. The current majority in both cities are Muslim Turks but that's only because these Muslims brutally expelled or murdered the indigenous Greek populations.
It is the same with Palestine. The real Palestinians are the ancient Christian communities of places like Bethlehem, Ramallah, or Nazareth as well as the ancient Jewish populations of Safed and many other places. The small Samaritan community has also been there continually. However, the Muslim Arabs whose ancestors are originally from Arabia are no more real Palestinians than the current Turkish majority in western Anatolia are real Smyrnans or Byzantines.
Olmert could save a little face by saying 'Our job is easy. Israelis don't commit acts of terrorism.'
Bet he won't though.
I am dreaming of a President who doesn't have the need to have himself photographed between the Israeli leader and the paleo taqiyya master of the hour.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at November 29, 2007 9:15 AM
That would be Tom Tancredo. Tom Tancredo is as original as one gets. Add to that Tom's patriotism and devotion to the right things. With Tom Tancredo, America cannot go wrong: http://www.teamtancredo.typepad.com
The real homeland of Cypriot Greeks is still Cyprus since Cyprus has been Greek for millenia.
But the homeland of Palestinian Arabs isn't Palestine because Palestine has only been Arab since 638? That's more than one millenium. It's a lot longer than people of European ancestry have been living in America. It's a lot longer than either whites of Bantu have been living in South Africa, or than Scotch-Irish have been living in Ulster. It's even longer than Germans have been living east of the Elbe. So if want to maintain that people can't claim a land as their "homeland" until they've been living there as long as the Greeks have been in Cyprus, rather than recognizing a much shorter statute of limitations, then I trust you're prepared to give North America back to the Indians, and to hand Northern Ireland over to the Republic.
Seamus,
The Christian population has lived in Nazareth, Bethlehem and other places continually since they converted to Christianity from Judaism and a Jewish population has been in places like Safed continuously, especially after they were expelled from Jerusalem by the Romans. Even after the Muslim conquest in 638, the Muslims came only as rulers, not as a settled population. When the Turks divided Jerusalem into four quarters: two for Christians, one for Jews, and one whole quarter reserved for the small group of Muslim rulers, they were reflecting the realities of the region.
When the Jewish-Christians of Yemen were expelled from Arabia by Abu Bakr they tried to return to their ancestral home of Jerusalem. He refused to let them so they settled in Shobak, Jordan. Five hundred years ago they got into a war with the local Arab Emir and appealed to the Turkish govwernor to let them finally come to Jerusalem.
Since Muslim-ruled Palestine was so sparsely poplulated, they were allowed to extablish the city of Ramallah which remained exclusively Christian until the time of the British Mandate. Since the Christians were more educated and prosperous than the Muslims, many Arabs began to move into Palestine seeking jobs in Christian owned orchards and businesses. The Christians were then outbreeded by the Muslim newcomers. Today there are few Christians left and Ramallah is Muslim.
The same applies also to Bethlehem, Nazareth and the rest of Palestine. Very few of the current population of Muslim Palestinians can trace their ancestry in Palestine back more than three or four generations.
In fact, one of the big unreported stories of modern Israel is the large number of Jordanians, Egyptians and other Arabs who have illegally moved into Israel and the Israeli controlled territories in the last thirty years. In order to gain economic and political power, they have abandoned their previous Arab identity for a "Palestinian" one. This should not be surprising. Just like the Southwestern USA, anytime you have a rich prosperous country with generous welfare benefits bordered by poorer less-developed countries, you will have massive undocumented immigration.
This is why there are so many Muslims in Palestine but they have about as much right to claim Palestinian sovereignty as the Muslim Algerians in the French banlieues or Mexican illegal immigrants in California.
BTW, The people of Northern Ireland are Irish and if they choose to join the Republic, it should be up to them, not the English.
Very few of the current population of Muslim Palestinians can trace their ancestry in Palestine back more than three or four generations.
Very few of the current population of California can trace their ancestry in California back more than three or four generations. Does that mean that they aren't genuine Californians?
Seamus,
Unlike Palestine, very few legal immigrants in California or their children are trying to eliminate the people that have been there for generations. Legitimately or not, while some Chicanos may seek an independent Atzlan, none have committed a suicide bombing in any Los Angeles disco or shopping mall.
It is true that the US once engaged in absolute genocide against the indigenous nations of North America and also took California from Mexico in a war of pure aggression. However, both Indians and Latinos are well integrated into North American society and few seriously want to drive the gringos into the ocean.
Just look at the merciless ethnic cleansing of Christians from their original homes in Ramallah and Bethlehem or the elimination of the entire Jewish populations in Jericho and Hebron. Also, ask yourself what happened to the Jewish communities of Egypt, Iraq, or Syria. This is the reality of Muslim rule.
Then compare that to Israel where Muslims are not only permitted to remain but actually recieve special treatment. They each get over $700 US per month in welfare payments, free medical care, and are exempt from any military or national service. There is even a Muslim in Olmert's cabinet.
Seconding provoslavni. Good point - Israeli Arabs have, for example, equality before the law in Israel. Jews and Christians did NOT, during the entire period of Muslim occupation, and will not, if the Muslims were to reconquer the land of Israel.
I've thought long and hard about this one. Because I support Jewish Native Title and Self-Determination on Jewish Traditional Land in Israel for much the same reasons that I support Aboriginal Australian Native Title, here. So why do I say Jews MUST have the State of Israel, whereas I don't see that all Euro-descended Americans or Australians need to 'go home' and leave the land for the Native Americans and Native Australians to control exclusively?
The difference is in the cultures of the invaders/ occupiers. The English-speaking and Spanish-speaking empires, though they committed appalling sins (which I am fully aware of, and which I DO NOT condone or excuse), were, to put it briefly, educable. Given that they at least paid lip service to the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, they could be called to account from within their own ranks - and by their victims as soon as their victims realized that the invaders were, in fact, blatantly contravening central tenets of the invaders' own professed religion.
Thus, an accommodation could be worked out, between Aboriginal invaded and the invading society, to eventually produce a new community in which the original natives have full civil and human rights, i.e are not slaves, and not despised, own and control property, have full equality before the law, and make full use of the good stuff the new people brought.
No such process - of recognition of the sins of Empire, restitution, correction, admission of the colonised to full human equality with the coloniser, even to the point of recognition of their languages and their rights in land - is possible for the Empire of Islam. Its imperial violence is commanded and commended, indeed glorified and celebrated, by its sacred texts - rather than contradicted and subverted, which is what happens to 'christian' empire-builders.
Indigenous non-Muslim peoples colonised by the Arab Muslims or by any other Muslim group, and who do not become Muslim, cannot use the texts of Islam against Muslims to demand that the amoral/ immoral treatment that they, the invaded, have suffered and are suffering, should be corrected. Because Islam COMMANDS that they should be dominated and humiliated and exploited.
The human rights of Aboriginal Americans and Aboriginal Australians can be fully affirmed within existing polities. Plenty of room for improvement - but improvement is possible, the religious and ideological framework of the 'colonising' society does allow for it.
The Ummah, on the other hand, has no intention of ever recognising the full human rights and civil rights of its victims.
Under Islam, there was no way that the human rights of the Jewish communities - or the Samaritans, or the Arabised Christians - in the land of Israel were going to be either recognised or properly protected. Dhimmitude was virtual slavery, institutionalised and sacralised - as I have said elsewhere, it was a religion-based apartheid, a system of vicious injustice, a 'protection' about as worthless as the 'protection' one receives from a Mafia don.
The Jews, if they wanted to live with full human and civil rights on their own traditional ancestral land - and why should they not desire such? - had to go the whole way - rebel against their former slave masters, claim the right to self-defence (absolutely forbidden to dhimmis), and ...reclaim and resolutely defend their nation, their state. Their choice was stark: either complete independence, a reconquista; or dhimmi slavery.
Seamus: Again, thanks for your recent posts. Just one comment here about your India/Palestine analogy. Hindus didn't like the creation of an independent Pakistan but they have learned to live with it. You don't have calls by Hindus en masse for the elimination of Pakistan. As far as I know, textbooks in India don't represent Pakistan as part of a greater India and refuse to show Pakistan as an existing country. You don't have any Hindu leader calling for Pakistan to be wiped off the face of the earth. You don't have Hindus insisting on a "right of return" to various areas in Pakistan where Hindus once lived, often in large numbers. Well, I'm sure you get my drift here.
As to your query would Hindus be more understanding of Jewish concerns and realities than Muslims. Hell yes. Virtually anyone would be (the best exeption here would be well-educated leftists in the Western world, clueless as usual). The Muslim world is pretty much at the bottom of the barrel respecting the acceptance of reality, letting bygones be bygones, refraining from self-pity and desisting from blaming everyone for its woes except itself. Surely you can see this, no?