Spencer turns out to have more evidence on his side than an addled Leftist claims

Usually the two sides of the great political divide in the United States talk past each other, or ignore each other altogether. The list of the Leftist and Muslim academics and apologists who have refused my challenge to debate is very long; they know they can’t refute what I say on the basis of evidence, so they resort to broad-based smears and personal attacks — and haughty refusals to debate.

And on those rare occasions when the opposition does offer a substantive response, it’s tissue-paper thin. A friend recently told me that he posted a lengthy rebuttal to a pseudo-scholarly presentation purporting to prove false something I said about the meaning of an Arabic word (my friend is a native Arabic speaker); his comment was summarily deleted. And the piece at hand is no better: in it, the author pretends that I have far less evidence to support my case than I actually have, and hopes that his readers won’t notice.

They probably won’t, if they are usual run of knee-jerk, uncritical Leftists. But I did. And now you will.

“The Usual Suspects,” by Adam Serwer in The American Prospect, June 11 (thanks to James):

It’s becoming an old story at this point. A group of American Muslims try to build a mosque, and right winders [sic] accuse the group of having terrorist ties. This time, it’s the Muslim American Society, and the mosque is in Staten Island:

More than a dozen speakers, including Robert Spencer, a writer whose blog, Jihad Watch, is widely read in conservative foreign-policy circles, said that the society and its national director, Mr. [Mahdi] Bray, had ties to Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood. The first two are on the State Department’s list.

“Will you denounce Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations?” Mr. Spencer demanded. “Yes or no?”

Mr. [Ayman] Hammous said he denounced “any form of terrorism, any act of terror — by individuals, by groups, by governments.”

Spencer’s evidence, as always, is tenuous. In his account of the Wednesday meeting, he links to a “40 page report” from his organization detailing these alleged terror ties, but the link doesn’t work.

The link is in this post. It does work. Here it is again.

It is not a link to my organization, but to Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project. It is a link to the IPT report on the Muslim American Society. Here, for good measure, is the IPT report on the MAS’s parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood.

He also posts a link to this video from 2000 showing MAS leader Imam Mahdi Bray publicly cheering the mention of Hamas and Hezbollah in Lafayette Square Park. In the proud tradition of Andrew Breitbart, the video cuts off most of the relevant context. The 44 second clip shows a crowd cheering as a [sic] Abdulrahman Alamoudi, then the leader of the American Muslim Council (not the Muslim American Society, which is building the mosque), says “I have been labeled by the media in New York to be a supporter of Hamas, anybody a supporter of Hamas here?” He later adds “I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah.” Bray, along with the crowd can be seen cheering to both statements in the background, and Spencer claims this as evidence of his ties to terror.

Both the speaker and the crowd were being sarcastic. That much is intimated by the statement “the media has labelled me.”…

Sarcastic? These guys should get their story straight. Serwer’s is a new one. But the sarcasm story doesn’t square with Bray’s other behavior. In December 2000, for example, Bray organized and spoke at an event that Emerson describes this way: “posters calling for ‘Death to Israel’ and equating the Star of David with the Nazi swastika were openly displayed, and anti-Semitic literature calling for the destruction of the Jews and Israel was distributed. Members of the crowd burned the Israeli flag while marching to the White House.”

Spencer calls MAS the “Muslim Brotherhood’s chief operating arm in the United States.” This claim is substantiated by a link to Pam Geller, the conservative blogger who once published speculation on her blog that Barack Obama was the illegitimate son of Malcolm X. Geller in turn, links to a general document about the Muslim Brotherhood’s international goals but doesn’t say anything about MAS, or provide any evidence that they have a relationship….

Actually I didn’t link to Pamela Geller in that instance to show the connection between the MAS and the Muslim Brotherhood, but to give background on the shady deal that saw the Staten Island convent end up in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. And by the way, as for that Malcolm X canard, Serwer doesn’t bother to quote this statement from Pamela Geller: “The ‘Atlas says that Barack Obama is Malcolm X’s love child’ charge has gone viral among leftards and lizards. The only problem with it is that it is false….I do not believe that Barack Obama is Malcolm X’s love child, and never did.”

For the link between the Muslim American Society and the Muslim Brotherhood, see the 2004 Chicago Tribune expose to which I have linked at Jihad Watch many times over the years. But I find tonight that it is gone from the Tribune website, and can be found in its entirety on…the Muslim Brotherhood website, Ikhwanweb.

The article says: –In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.”

The Brotherhood itself seems to have no problem with that claim.

MAS isn’t the first Muslim group Spencer has accused of being tied to terror. Spencer also recently appeared on the Sean Hannity [sic] where he made similar accusations against Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, whose organization is building the Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero. Alongside Debra Burlingame, who co-founded Keep America Safe with Liz Cheney, Spencer suggested Rauf’s father was part of the Muslim Brotherhood. That information is false:

Conservative critics have also suggested the project will be funded by radical groups abroad, but Rauf says they haven’t raised any money yet. They’ve also sought to tie Rauf’s late father, Dr. Muhammad Abdul Rauf, to the Muslim Brotherhood. But Rauf points out that during the 1960s, when Egyptian dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser was cracking down on the Brotherhood, the Egyptian government was sending his father around the world to give lectures. “Anyone who had ever been in the Muslim Brotherhood was imprisoned,” Rauf says. “Had my father been in the Brotherhood, he would have been picked up.”

Maybe. But it isn’t that easy. Nasser, like Sadat and Mubarak after him, always played carrot-and-stick games with the Brotherhood, giving them leeway and cracking down by turns in order to try to keep a lid on the movement but not so tight a one as to lead to a revolution. And as for Rauf’s father, journalist Alyssa Lappen declares that “Feisal Rauf’s Muslim Brotherhood provenance, radical by definition, is as authentic as it gets.” She points out that his father fled Egypt in 1948 — which just happens to be right around the time that the Egyptian government really was cracking down hard on the Brotherhood, in the same crackdown that ultimately resulted in the assassination of Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna in February 1949.

It’s not a coincidence that these are moderate and liberal Muslim groups being targeted–Spencer and his fellows see most Muslims as potential terrorists. “They believe that every Muslim is a covert Jihadi with an assault rifle or an explosive vest hidden at home that they can’t wait to bring out,” Ramey says. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Indeed. Nothing could be further from the truth than the idea that I actually think such a thing, but it should be clear by now that neither Serwer nor Ramey care very much for the truth.

His opposition to building the mosque, Spencer says, is done in the name of protecting America from Islam, to prevent Muslims from “subjugat[ing] women and non-Muslims and deny the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience.” Because in Spencer’s world, a country that has freedom of speech and conscience is one that denies Muslims the right to build places of worship. The Ground Zero excuse — that an Islamic center would dishonor the memory of those who died on 9/11 — certainly doesn’t fly in Staten Island.

Serwer ignores, of course, the fact that Ground Zero mega-mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is an open proponent of Sharia, which does subjugate women and non-Muslims and deny the freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. Either we allow the propagation of such ideas in the U.S. or we don’t. If we do, however, we will ultimately lose those freedoms in our society as a whole. The philosopher Karl Popper explained it: “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed and tolerance with them.”

And I suspect Adam Serwer would be just fine with that.

The New Yorker sneers at a freedom fighter
Paypal suspends SIOA, FDI, Atlas Shrugs accounts as "hate speech"
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    Dear or Dear, Robert: the “40 page report” you mention is actually a 42 page report. How dare you so casually distort the facts!!….

  2. says

    I sense that Adam Serwer’s glib toleration of supersessionist Islam and blithe dismissal of the Ikhwanist menace merely express his intellectual conceit.

  3. says

    I would be happy to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations if Robert would likewise condemn the Israeli government as the greatest terrorist organization in the Middle East. For instance the Goldstone Report said that the assault on Gaza, which wasn’t a war but was in fact a massacre, was to “punish and terrorize” the people of Gaza. Not my words. These are the words of the UN fact finding mission. Goldstone himself is of course demonized and not refuted. He is a Jew and considers himself a Zionist. He entered the legal field motivated by the atrocities of the holocaust. So the standard charges of anti-Semitism don’t stick real well. But what do the terror apologists have but demonization?

    Hamas and Hezbollah do not approach Israel in terms of the scale of their terrorism. Can anyone deny this with facts and evidence, or will I merely be attacked personally for pointing out the obvious?

  4. says

    Jon levels this charge at Israel …

    “the Israeli government is the greatest terrorist organization in the Middle East.”

    He then attempts to back this blatant lie by providing “facts” from the UN, lol …

    I am somewhat surprised that Jon would reference the UN, especially since it is widely known that they have a reputation for being bias against Israel.

    Jon, your hatred for the Jews is showing. Tsk, tsk!

  5. says

    “Serwer ignores, of course, the fact that Ground Zero mega-mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is an open proponent of Sharia, which does subjugate women and non-Muslims and deny the freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.” — Robert

    Serwer also ignores the name of this mega-mosque: Cordoba House.

    Come on Serwer, connect the dots …

  6. says

    It’s stuff like this that has inspired me to stay with Islam Studies in school. You’re breaking ground that newcomers to the field like myself are hoping to build on. Keep speaking truth to the unholy PC left/Islamist alliance; it’s no exaggeration to say that Western civilization basically depends on it.

  7. says

    GS, what are you studying in your Islam Studies in school?

    What we need most of all to support activism, is education and self-education. Public opinion rules. The best way to make one’s voice influence public opinion is by knowing in detail as much as possible about Islamic texts, history, and the current state of human rights within each Muslim nation. Then one also needs to know in detail the Judeo-Christian tradition, so that one can show the key distinctions between Islam and the West.

    In Daniel Boorstin’s brilliant book, The Creators, there is a very short, brilliant chapter — perhaps five pages — that cuts right to the heart of the difference between the Judeo-Christian worldview on the one hand, and the worldview of Islam on the other. Here is that chapter, boiled down to less than a page: “For a believing Muslim, to create is a rash and dangerous act.”.

  8. says

    Kim, Traeh,

    No worries, no worries. I’m not the “sociable” type. I take what’s useful from school, the rest I get on my own. Have since elementary. However, in-person availability of instructors from the Middle East and North Africa, the ability to take Arabic and Persian, and access to copies of original texts makes it all worthwhile to me. The degree doesn’t hurt either :P. And as I’m sure you’ve noticed, when devout Islamists or PC apologists attempt to explain away a civilization’s method of existence, they usually just end up validating the questions you’ve posed to them.

    I’m particularly interested in Islamic jurisprudence; that’s the focus of my work so far, and likely what I’ll do my graduate thesis on. I do a lot of research on Shi’a jurisprudence, in particular. Their use of certain hadith that only twelvers find “valid” is a major motivator towards their support of terrorist groups that may not always strike their theological chord, though of course, long-term Shi’a influence over these groups, the Palestinians in particular, is clearly a goal of theirs. The Iranian take on Shi’ism fits so well with Persian cultural chauvinism, so I find it an interesting angle to investigate.

    To sum it up, I long ago realized that the Qur’an was a “Conquerors Guide to the Middle East”. What I needed was the first-hand education, the type that the ulema receive, in terms of jurisprudence.

  9. says

    adam serwer

    redundant first ‘r ‘ in his name – cheap jibe , I know
    But his arguments do come from the sewer – how does he sleep – doesn’t he realise what threat we are all under ?
    Can he imagine all his descendants living under the islamic heel – doesn’t that bother him ?

    I can’t believe that he really believs what he
    is saying

  10. says

    Robert notes that “A friend recently told me that he posted a lengthy rebuttal to a pseudo-scholarly presentation purporting to prove false something I said about the meaning of an Arabic word (my friend is a native Arabic speaker); his comment was summarily deleted.”

    Yes, Robert’s friend’s report of being blocked from posting on that site (I’m assuming Robert is talking about Loonwatch and their recent claims about the meanings of the word dhimmis) is consistent with other reports I’ve heard and with my own attempt to post there some months ago. I can see how the moderators of that site, for the threads about the word dhimmi, would be reluctant to post something from a native Arabic speaker who disagrees with them.

    BTW, Robert’s article “The dhimmis: guilty people” (May 27) rebuts Loonwatch’s sweeping denials, and I provide additional evidence in support of Robert’s claim in that comment thread. My most recent posts in that thread (June 8 and June 13) refute Danios’ continued confusion, and bizarre claims, about the dhimma (e.g., according to Danios’ interpretation, non-Muslim dhimmis cannot ever be guilty of violating the dhimma covenant, and they are not guilty of rejecting Islam).

  11. says

    “Spencer turns out to have more evidence on his side than an addled Leftist claims”

    …and I find this to be true of the (above-mentioned) “dhimmis” argument as well.

  12. says

    Both the speaker and the crowd were being sarcastic. That much is intimated by the statement “the media has labelled me.”…

    Perhaps Imam Mahdi Bray was only joking.

  13. says

    Evidence? Leftists and Muslims don’t need no evidence. If the truth were important there wouldn’t even be a debate.

  14. says

    Ah yes: I had forgotten that Hamas made good use of the mayhem to get rid of opponents in the most effective way possible. Odd, there´s been a total blackout on that ever since.

  15. says

    “Either we allow the propagation of those ideas or we don’t.” But we have to allow the propagation of ALL ideas if we are to preserve freedom of speech, of which Mr. Spencer is a notable proponent. Popper’s famous lines continue that we should allow all speech as long as intolerant speech can be countered by reason. One might read into this the idea that while intolerant speech should be tolerated, intolerant actions based upon that speech should not.

    I think the jihadists’ arguments are imminently counterable by reason. Naturally, any attempts to subvert our constitution and/or institute sharia law should be vigorously resisted.

  16. says

    “Addled leftist” or Muslim apologist?

    Behind “Serwer” I detect “Sarwar.” That argues for the latter.

  17. says

    Just as environmentalism should not be a liberal issue, alarm at Islamic radicalism should not be a conservative issue. I am a liberal on many topics, but I am deeply concerned about the insidiousness of Islamism. After I wrote my novel “Amsterdam 2012″, which is about an Islamic uprising in Amsterdam that spreads to civil war in Europe, many of my “liberal” friends gave me the cold shoulder, as if I had betrayed them. Robert’s arguments have a great deal of credibility, and whether liberal or conservative, we need to listen. If liberals don’t start listening, we’ll end up in a similar situation to Europe, a situation to which I can envision no peaceful resolution. I am not sure that the media is particularly “liberal” any more. I think they are simply lazy and ignorant.

  18. says

    Serwer’s name is misspelled…Take the ‘R’ out…He is proof that liberal leftists are so open minded their brains have fallen out…

    About Jon…You folks who write long intellectual posts in response to his non-sense are wasting you time…I doubt he has the ability to focus that long…His primitive intellect will naturally drift off to thoughts of food and sex…

    I prefer the short and not too intellectual response like…
    ‘Bugger off Jon’…

  19. says

    ” …. Either we allow the propagation of such ideas in the U.S. or we don’t. If we do, however, we will ultimately lose those freedoms in our society as a whole. The philosopher Karl Popper explained it: “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed and tolerance with them.”

    Spencer quote a limited version of Karl Poppers tolerance paradox in a way that promotes his own black and white agenda but does not give credit to the qualifying remarks made by Popper himself in “The Open Society and its Enemies”.

    Popper wrote:

    “… I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.”

    So the question is if Spencer no longer think that rational arguments will be sufficient to counter the intolerance of the Islamists and their useful idiots to save democracy, and in desperation he calls for a ban at this early stage of the clash of civilizations?

  20. says

    Thank you traeh for your non-ad hominem reply.

    I was aware that Dershowitz had written a rebuttal to the report. I can understand why someone would take his opinions seriously. He is the Felix Frankfurter Chair at Harvard Law. He writes books and gets top notch reviews. So if you haven’t looked into him a lot you might otherwise trust him.

    I’ve found though digging deeper that he’s really not trustworthy. At my own blog I had a comment on him and I recommend you watch the debate that I link to in that comment. My blog post doesn’t discredit him to a large degree, but if you watch the debate you will see him get criticized for really poor use of sources and probably plagiarism. Not that I care a lot about plagiarism. That’s not the main issue in my view. But his sources are the IDF, a probably fraudulent book, and other even more ridiculous sources. Here’s my blog with a link to the debate.

    http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2010/06/watch-dershowitz-spin.html

    Contrast his credentials and use of sources with Richard Goldstone. It’s pretty stark.

    Goldstone isn’t the only one that detailed what occurred in Gaza. Amnesty International wrote several reports. Also Human Rights Watch. The Jewish human rights organization also wrote some. This is B’Tselem. Also Palestinian Human Rights Organizations. They all reach the same conclusions. Who should we believe? Alan Dershowitz with his track record of questionable sources or all the human rights organizations and respected international agencies?

    I haven’t read the Goldstone Report or the lengthy criticisms of it by Israel’s defenders, but as just a layman trying to draw this most rational conclusion I can I have to ask myself if I should trust the reporting of someone like Dershowitz, who relies heavily on IDF sources, or the most respected sources worldwide who are not parties to the conflict? I think it makes a lot more sense to trust Amnesty International, B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch, and Goldstone over Dershowitz. Do you think that’s a reasonable approach?

  21. says

    The U.N. has zero, I repeat, zero credibility in relation to the the actions and motivations of Israel. The U.N. has been subsumed by its Islamist bloc’s agenda. The report is meaningless and garbage.

    Your throwing of Dershowitz under the bus, though most of his other causes are of the liberal ilk, which would probably please you, shows pretty clearly you just don’t like Jews, and would willing believe admitted Muslim liars, liars by ideology and faith, over his analysis.

    How is it you cannot see the tactics of the Flotilla and the use of human shields during the Muslim agression last summer are one and the same tactic? That propaganda is all to them. How can you fall for this stuff? You’d have to be an anti-Semite or so incredibly left to believe these terrorists over the Israelis. Oh yes, Amnesty International. They don’t have any agenda, do they? Don’t be so naive!!

  22. says

    Winoceros, what are your assertions that the UN and Amnesty International are simply following the Islamic bloc’s agendas? Is this why Amnesty International documents human rights abuses against the Kurdish minority in Turkey? Is that why Amnesty International was so outraged at Indonesia’s brutal invasion and occupation of East Timor? Indonesia is the most populous Islamic country in the world by the way.

    The UN has condemned Israel many times, and other Islamic states. They do it because Israel is presently occupying a foreign country and doing so in gross violation of international law. Even the US justice on the International Court of Justice agreed that the Israeli occupation was ipso facto illegal. So this dismissal of these respected agencies as somehow in on a conspiracy to discredit Israel just sounds extremely unreasonable to me and nothing but an excuse to dismiss the obvious conclusions.

  23. says

    Re: the problem of Spencer’s sentence —

    “Either we allow the propagation of such ideas [ideas from Sharia law] in the U.S. or we don’t.”

    The U.S.A. does not forbid the propagation of any ideas, including those of the Communist Party, the KKK, neo-Nazis, Satanists, etc. While three or four European countries have developed limited policies of making the propagation of certain ideas illegal — usually incurring fines or even jail time — such as the propagation of Holocaust denial, or more vaguely “hate speech” (e.g., the actress Brigitte Bardot, who has been fined by the French government more than once for “hate” against Muslims in one or more books she wrote), this tendency is by no means dominant in Europe and it has tended to operate amid much internal debate, tension and dissension from critics. Canada also has “hate speech” laws, and seems to be worse than the European countries that have them — though, of course, the “hate speech” laws seem to be unilaterally applied according to the PC MC Dogma of Reverse Racism, and for that reason never seem to apply to the hate speech which Muslims endemically deploy through expressing the tenets of their Islam.

    If Spencer’s sentence was not just a sloppy slip, I think it’s explained by the somewhat incoherent corner he paints himself into with one aspect of his theory of stealth jihad — viz., the aspect that tends to disconnect violent jihad from stealth jihad and thus tends to see the latter as in and of itself dangerous. But society is not endangered by a group that proposes the subjugation of women and of other minority groups, if that group never intends to use violence to further their aims. If a modern democratic society voluntarily chooses the path of accepting and implementing such pernicious ideas, then it deserves them. But no modern democratic society will ever accept and implement the pernicious ideas in Sharia Law, when the rubber meets the road.

    For now, modern democratic societies of the West are playing an irresponsible game half-wittingly countenancing such pernicious ideas of Islam out of a confused sense of wishing to be “tolerant” and out of an anxiety that seeks to avoid being “bigoted” against a worldwide People and their central culture, perceived to be ethnic. Precisely because things have not come to a head, this clash of Western liberalism and Islamic Sharia remains in a state of limbo and so the PC MCs as yet have never had to face the responsibility of the actual concrete choice between the anti-liberal ideas of Islam, and a defense of their own Western liberal ideas of how to organize society. That confrontation can only occur through the medium of violence, when Muslims try to force their ways on us, which, because they will remain militarily weak, they will continue to pursue through the roundabout tactics of various forms of terrorism and threats of terrorism.

    Spencer’s somewhat incoherent stance on stealth jihad vis-a-vis violent jihad is also related to the incoherence he shares with Geert Wilders and Pam Geller, among many others in the still inchoate Anti-Islam Movement — namely, the incoherence that tries simultaneously to condemn Islam while claiming they they are not against Muslims per se and may even aver that most Muslims are harmless. This incoherence seems to rest on a curious myopia to the fact that any given Muslim is Islam personified, is Islam activated, is Islam realized. The only way to attenuate this fact is to then come in out of left field with various theories about how “most Muslims don’t know their Islam”, or “most Muslims are really lax and don’t follow their Islam”, or “many Muslims practice an enlightened moderate form of Islam”, or any number of other ways by which one tries to superimpose Western mores upon Muslims, as though the historical process that has massaged Western Jews and Christians into a state of predominant secular relaxation must necessarily also apply to the majority of Muslims.

  24. says

    Thank you and kudos to Jon, Traeh, Ruth, ebonystone and the others who have sensibly contributed to a serious debate which not surprisingly has developed beyond the scope of the original piece by RS. The discussion has prompted me to share the following musings.

    Can there really be any doubt that as defined by the relevant religious authorities, e.g. the Quran, hadith, etc., the Islamic belief system:
    a) is irrational in that contrary to scientific evidence it posits an omniscient, omnipotent god (this it shares with many religions);
    b) is uniquely intolerant in that it proscribes freedom of thought (convert or die, death for apostasy) and freedom of expression (death for blasphemy);
    c) seeks to impose a worldwide totalitarian government/ caliphat under a sharia law that is characterized by chauvinistic values unchanged from the 7th century, e.g. an absence of democratically elected government, inequality of women under the law, restrictions on art and social conduct including mistreatment of women and death for homosexual conduct that in general would be considered barbaric by evolved civilizations.
    As JW readers know, this is not an Islamaphobic interpretation of Islam, simply a pious one that has come to fruition in several contries. People across the entire breadth of the political spectrum should be aware of the inherent danger of the Islamic belief system. It is wrong, intellectually and strategically, to conflate liberalism with kowtowing to Islam. Unfortunately, that error is too often committed here. It’s as if “liberal” is defined exclusively by how one reacts to the spread and influence of Islam. Like Ruth said above “alarm at Islamic radicalism should not be a conservative issue.”
    For many centuries Dar al-Islam remained relatively quiescent and therefor largely ignored. The invention of the automobile and the concommitant discovery of mideast oil revived its role on the world stage. The subsequent creation of the state of Israel brought into sharper focus the fundamental precepts of the Islamic belief system. As a result of Dar al-Islam’s bellicose reaction to the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, hostilities between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb have continuously intensified.
    Under the inept administration of George W. Bush the US made several foreign policy blunders not the least of which was an ill conceived, ill executed military attack on Iraq. Many think that the reasons proffered for this manuever were fraudulent, to wit, that the real motive was not to retaliate against the terrorist attack of 9/11 much less to prevent a repeat of it via non-existent WMD, but to secure a supply of that dimishing but critical commodity, oil. Understandably, the preemptive bombardment of Baghdad and the ensuing mayhem provoked by an occupation force in Iraq antagonized and united much of Dar al_Islam against the west and in particular, its leader, the US. It harmed our allies as well, in particular, Israel.

    Much, if not most, of the Dar al-Kufr/Dar al-Harb’s citizenry is rendered comatose by TV, Facebook, and other equally mind-numbing variants of popular culture. A small percentage try to inform themselves of world affairs in order to participate in important geopolitical debate. An even smaller percentage are political activists who endeavor to shape events. Unlike these groups, Israelis, Gazans and other Palestinians as well as a lot of Iraqis and Afghanis have little or no choice – like it or not, they are on the frontlines of the war. It’s not words, but bullets and bombs that are falling down around them. Consequently, their reality and conduct is difficult for outsiders to gauge.
    It has been said that the first casualty of war is the truth. It’s no surprise that it has proven problemmatical to ascertain how the acts of the IDF during operation Cast Lead measure up against the standards of international law, or whether the blockade of Gaza is illegal as defined by international law because it works a disproportionate hardhip on the civilian population in relation to the military advantage gained, or whether excessive force was utilized during the interdiction of the Marmara. Likewise, it may be difficult for non-Gazans to assess the conduct of Hamas on behalf of its constituents, especially if one concludes the blockade of Gaza is, in fact, illegal because it has a disproportionately devastating effect on the civilian population. The ultimate standard in much of international law is “disproportionality” which in turn is based on reasonableness under the circumstances. As a former trial lawyer I can assure you that people of good faith can disagree on what is or isn’t reasonable.

    However, one comes down on this issue of the legality of the tactics of the combatants, it is relatively clear that Israel is losing the battle in the court of public opinion. I realize that the Hamas charter provides for the elimination of the state of Israel. Nevertheless, Israel must alter its current strategy for it to win its struggle to survive. That means that we who support the continued existence and well being of Israel need to be thinking more strategically and less philosophiclly about the combatants. Accordingly, we can not allow our antipathy for Islam to dictate our mideast strategy. It isn’t about about good and evil. It’s about winning, defined as securing an enduring peace for the state of Israel as well as for the Palestinians.
    In fact, as far as I can tell, the oppressive religious ideology of bedfellows Hamas, Hezbolah, Al Qaida and Taliban is not the foremost factor responsible for their continued political gains. Rather, it seems to be their relative lack of corruption in administrating the civilian populations where they have footholds. Of course, one reads of excesses commited in that respect as well, e.g. executions of those cooperating with the foreign forces etc. As or more importantly, the reason for the success of these Islamic orgs is their psuedoheroic battle against what is widely perceived to be unfair and illegal Israeli aggression. To counter that phenomenon Israel must alter its policies in order to present a kinder, gentler persona. The Gaza blockade must be relaxed and Israel’s hardline truculence regarding the constuction within existing and new settlements must be softened. Hopefully, the political realities in Israel will allow for that.

  25. says

    What Arabs declared after the Six-Day War:

    “There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity… yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel”.

    – Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council –

    “You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Never forget this one point: There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people”.

    – Syrian dictator Hafez Assad to the PLO leader Yassir Arafat –

    Do you get it? There’s no such thing as “Palestinians.”

  26. says

    I think that ipso is either a muslim in hiding, or an apologist for islam. He continually sends mixed messages by insisting that he isn’t a muslim and that he hates islam; but then he’ll turn right around with comments that in some way either defend or support islam & company — which is red flag, in my book. Anyone else notice the same contradiction?

  27. says

    Kim, do you think if you repeat the same quotes often enough it will somehow undo the facts I offered? I accept those quotes and explain what they mean in the context of a peaceful resolution. You’re not addressing the substance of my response. The borders are artificial. I don’t deny it, so I don’t deny that in a sense there are no Palestinians. They are all Arabs. But these are the indigenous people of this region, driven from their homes violently by settler colonists. They’re ready to cede much of the territory that was their homeland anyway and have peace, yet Israel refuses. These are the facts of the case and it would seem you do not want to address them.

  28. says

    So Wellington, does abuse by Muslims of Jewish peoples justify Zionist abuse of the indigenous Arabs in Palestine?

    If the real reason peace is elusive is because there’s too much Islam in the Middle East then why does every Arab state vote in favor of a peaceful resolution to the conflict and a two state solution every year, with only the US, Israel, and a couple of south sea islands going against it, maybe with Australia occasionally? Here’s the latest roll call.

    http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/another-close-vote-at-the-united-nations/

    Who are the terrorists? Observe photographic evidence from the Gaza “War” and take a look at what you are defending. Spencer wants us to know who will condemn Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorists. I want to know who will likewise acknowledge the far greater terrorism of the Israeli state.

    http://www.goldstone-report.org/images/stories/pdfs/Photo_Documentation_Against_Israel.pdf

  29. says

    I completely with the reactions of Kim and Wellington to Jon.

    who said:
    “But these are the indigenous people of this region, driven from their homes violently by settler colonists. They’re ready to cede much of the territory that was their homeland anyway and have peace, yet Israel refuses.”

    The arguments go back and forth on this for a long time now, I know. But this conquering of land, which was really in the big scheme an exchange of land, because approx. as many Jews left Arab lands as Arabs left current Israeli lands. And in the big scheme of history Israel is a tiny spec compared with what Muslims took from others and kept and the world has acquiesced to that since.

    So why do people acguiesce to the Turkish conquest of the Byzantine empire with Constantinople and not to what Israel has conquered? It’s so artificial to say that: Oh, after 1945 or so conquest became forbidden, before that date we accept everything. No, with every day that passes the Israeli’s get more of the same rights as the Turks on their conquered lands, and the Palestinians should be asked more to acquiesce as the Greeks once did. And you know the Greeks did not get one bit of Asia Minor or Constantinopel back, which was completely theirs before the Turks came.

    It is the Arabs under Arafat that refused a good peaceplan in 2000 and 2007. I saw the map you used to argue that Barak did not offer Arafat enough, according to you. But still it was the responsibility of the Arabs that that peace-deal didn’t come true. They still acted like bad losers, spoiled children.

    Because they still could have had 97 % of what they wanted. They would not have needed border control and all the trappings of all other states and this proposal would have left them in peace with Israel. A democracy that would not let itself hurt other people if not absolutely necessary. Because Israeli’s are on principle not different from how all other average citizens of Democracies would be in the same situation in my opinion.

    The Israeli settlements and border guards would only have been minor obstacles and inconveniences. And in peace the Palestinian Arabs would have given their children a big chance on prosperity, good education and happiness. Together with the children of the Arabs in refugee camps, for whom the Arab world could have allowed a gradual solution. Now they stole that from their children.

    This is their choice, their responsibility. And the more so if they really believed that what they kept telling each other about the Jews; how bad, immoral they were. Well, then, a logical, responsible Arab leadership would not count on the Israeli’s changing or getting weaker in the foreseeable future. And that leadership would have settled things in 2000 and moved on.

    I don’t know what exactly the UN is voting about. It can’t be about the Saudi peaceplan, because that is outrageous. It must be some vague overall proposal, if so many countries voted for it.

    About that Saudi peace plan, please tell us exactly how many descendants of Arab refugees have the right to go to the place their ancestors lived inside present Israel in that plan. You taunt that plan everytime but neglect consistently to tell this part.

    There are millions of Arab refugees in camps, are they going to be set up with a lot of Israeli and Western costs as loyal Israeli citizens, is that the plan? And for what parties are they going to vote, you think?

  30. says

    Wellington, you write:

    “Israel is surrounded by millions of Muslims who want no Israel at all”

    It doesn’t matter what they want. Gandhi didn’t want an independent Pakistan. Mexico didn’t want the present US borders that involved the conquering of half of Mexico. What matters is that Gandhi and Mexico decided that they would be willing to accept what they regarded as an injustice and the Arab world has expressly stated they are willing to do the same.

    “As for Arab states voting for a peaceful resolution of the “conflict,” it’s always conditionalized by such things as the “right of return” or resumption of the 1967 boundaries, which would leave Israel extremely vulnerable (thus being merely steps in the process of eventually having no Israel at all).”

    Not it is not conditioned on the right of return. It’s conditioned on a resolution to the refugee question based on the right of return and compensation. Meaning people that had their homes stolen should be compensated. That’s a perfectly fair and reasonable demand.

    “As for the photos you provided, these are demonstrative of the very cynical way in which Islamic terrorist groups like Hamas DELIBERATELY put civilians in harm’s way in order to insure more casualties. You know or should know that the IDF adheres to decent standards of warfare that dwarfs the disregard for life by every Arab military or Islamic group on earth. Deny this and I know you are a liar.”

    You know, it’s really quite pathetic to listen to you accuse Hamas of doing what the photos I just provided show the IDF to be doing. Check pages 95-99. Photographic evidence of the IDF using Palestinian civilians as human shields. Will you condemn the IDF as a terrorist organization? Here’s the link again. Pages 95-99.

    http://www.goldstone-report.org/images/stories/pdfs/Photo_Documentation_Against_Israel.pdf

    “Your silence here is deafening and noticeable to all but the wicked and obtuse.”

    Is it my silence our your poor reading comprehension? I addressed the irrelevant nature of this comment. Abuse of Jews by Arabs does not justify abuse of other Arabs that had nothing to do with the abuse you are referring to. Is this something you find difficult to fathom?

    “I tell you this, and you can continue to ignore it if you will, the world is catching on to the real nature of Islam and with each passing year”

    The world has long been caught on to Israel’s crimes. The difference now is that the one nation that actually matters, the United States, is also catching on. The defenders of Israel’s enormous terrorism are being subjected to exposure now. Which side of history do you want to be on?

  31. says

    Denial is the mechanism by which people can close their eyes to the truth. My guess is some people can’t psychologically and emotionally handle the reality of what islam is; others actually benefit from denying its existence.Then there are those who are generally in a fog about everything. Whether one tries to educate using the “if it walks like a duck”, etc, approach, or by way of a more scholarly genre, its like trying to convince a substance abuser who is intent of going out on a drug – run that they shouldn’t.Some people are willing to listen to reason only when their losses become greater than their denial. In this case, the liberals who are in public office are like the drug-pushers who use smoke and mirrors to hide their real motives. As the bodies pile up they hope to keep the game going. They are protecting islam because they hope to benefit from it as a voting block and as a vehicle by which to keep big government involved. regardless of the cost to more innocent American victims.

  32. says

    I have commented on new stories from the AP posted online, only to have my comments “edited” and watered down to nothing. One comment was even twisted to sound as if I was in favor of something I was not. President Obama has banned the words “Islamic jihad” from federal documents, and opinions not supporting Islamic supremacy are apparently banned from the media, even opinions of readers/viewers. It is a conditioning and false peer pressure. We should email news articles, along with our opinions, to Congress daily.

  33. says

    Under Sharia law, Muslims cannot be executed for killing a non-Muslim, but non-Muslims can be executed or beaten or otherwise punished for “offending” a Muslim, dishonoring Islam, saying Allah, etc., etc., etc. It is part of the privilege of being a Muslim under Sharia law and the oppression of being a non-Muslim under Sharia law. That is why you see the absolute rage of Muslims at the slightest insult to Islam or Muslims, but there are very few Muslims who will dare say anything when a non-Muslim is injured or even killed. The same rationalization is used regarding Israel. Every injury or death of a jihadist (whose intention is to murder Israelis for Islam) or a jihadist’s human shield is considered the worst evil and reason for revenge, while an Israelis’ death is considered victory in Islam.

  34. says

    “Really, you have such a screwed up reading of the past that it is truly pathetic.”

    Kind words, considering the fact that Jon is a bona fide LIAR. From the moment he claimed that Israel was the “worst terrorist organization EVER”, then I knew whatever else flowed from his fingertips would be one lie after another; and he certainly hasn’t disappointed me. Pathetic.

  35. says

    It seems you’re switching to the name calling method Wellington. That’s unfortunate, but par for the course.

    Let me ask this question. You seem to think that UN mandates are pretty important. The Palestinians should have evacuated their homes per UN mandates. Let’s recall that in 1947 the UN Partition plan was passed barely with the required 2/3 majority and it was done through bribery. But this is the UN conclusion so in your world it must be followed. If the people don’t accept it, then it is permissible to expand indefinitely and punish the ancestors of the people that failed to give their homes to foreigners freely.

    Since then the UN has voted on a new set of borders, ceding much additional territory to Israel. They’ve done it every year since 1976 I believe. It’s passed by margins such as 180-3. Why don’t you call on Israel to evacuate their homes per UN mandates?

    You must pick your poison. Either the UN should be ignored and you can’t appeal to 1947 as justification for telling Arabs they were obligated to evacuate their homes, or the UN should be listened to and we should have a peaceful resolution to the conflict at the 1967 borders and the settlers should evacuate their homes and the refugees should be compensated.

  36. says

    No such thing as “Palestinians”:

    “March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here’s what he said:

    “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.

    For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”

    The Arab governments never sought a Palestinian state because it would mean accepting Israel.”

    End of story.

  37. says

    Wellington, you attempt to justify your assumption that the UN was valid in 1947 but not any longer by saying that now it’s a forum for dictators to lecture everyone. But it’s not just the dictators that are asking Israel to adopt a peaceful resolution to the conflict. It’s also the democratically elected governments, barring the US and the few stragglers. Explain how you are not guilty of special pleading, that is one standard for you when you prefer it (follow the UN when it’s claims suit your agenda) and another when you don’t (ignore the larger consensus demanding Israel retreat to the ’67 borders.

    People were required to evacuate their homes in 1947/48. Not by the UN but by the Israeli military forces. As far as ambiguity about returning to the ’67 borders, that’s nonsense. The resolution demands a return to the ’67 borders with “minor and mutual modifications.” There’s a few crooked lines and it was agreed they should be straightened. To pretend this represents a real amiguity about what Israel is obligated to do based on the demands of the international community is nonsense.

  38. says

    Jon keeps peddling the lie that all Arabs who fled during the 1947-1948 war were ‘required to evacuate their homes’ by ‘the Israeli military forces’.

    John Roy Carlson, who was there at the time – and among the Arab Muslims for most of that time, observing and recording Muslim behaviour and attitudes – begs to differ.

    From the text of his book, ‘Cairo to Damascus’, p.p 234-235 of the 1951 edition:

    ‘Some fifty thousand Arabs had fled Jaffa’.

    Carlson then adds this extensive footnote:

    
”This flight-psychosis, which prevailed among the Arabs and ultimately resulted in the frantic exodus of many Moslems and Christians, is a difficult phenomenon to explain. It was a mass hysteria induced by poor morale *and by fear of revenge and retributiion for the Arab massacres and lootings from 1920 on* {my emphasis added – dda}.

    “Arab leaders – particularly in the Mufti’s Higher Committee – urged residents to clear the fighting areas, promising them that Palestine would be cleared of Jews within thirty days after the Mandate ended.

    “After the Jews had been pushed into the sea, Arab leaders said, Palestinians could return to their homes and at the same time share in Jewish booty.

    ‘**They implied that those who refused to leave were pro-Zionist; such people were threatened with retribution.* *{my emphasis added – dda}

    “In contrast, I [Carlson] know of instances where the Jews begged the Arabs, particularly the Christian elements, to remain, guaranteeing their safety and full respect for property.

    “These Christians, however, joined the fleeing Moslems, **fearing the promised retribution following the promised Arab victory** {my emphasis added – dda}.

    “As an instance, the Armenians, who had always got along well with Arab and Jew alike, joined the panicky Moslems, *horror-stricken by the memory of the Turkish massacres* {my emphasis added – dda}.

    “Wealthy merchants, physicians, bankers, politicians and other leaders were the first to leave.

    “Later came the poorer elements until, by the time the Mandate expired, those remaining were largely only the ill and the aged, *the looters*, and the innocents.

    “The exodus figure of 750 000 or more Arabs is sheer propaganda, a fictional number that cannot be supported by the facts.

    “The populace in the country from Jerusalem north to Jericho was not disturbed by the fighting, nor were the Arabs and Christians resident in the congested areas within the quadrangle formed by Ramallah, Tulkarm, Jenin, and Nablus – Palestinian territory now annexed by Jordan.

    “It must also be pointed out that many of the Moslem so-called refugees were homeless, nomadic wanderers in the first place.

    “*Poor, nonrefugee Arabs, such as those in Gaza {NOTA BENE – dda}, have claimed refugee status in order to qualify for American aid* {my emphasis added – dda}.”

  39. says

    Danios of LoonWatch has officially accepted Mr. Robert Spencer’s challenge to a debate.

    Danios writes:

    “I accept your challenge, Spencer. I agree to a radio debate with you on the topic of jihad and “dhimmitude”, namely chapters 1-4 of your book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). It will then be seen if you can defend your own writing, which I argue is a load of sensationalist crock.

    Will you accept my challenge to debate or cower in fear? My guess is that you “know [you] can’t refute what I say” and will “resort to…haughty refusals to debate.”

    I predict that the JW minions will give excuses to explain away why their master Robert Spencer will refuse to debate me, instead of urging him to enter into a debate as they always do with other people who challenge his ideas. They already know that Spencer does not stand a chance in a debate with me, which is why they will continue to generate excuses to exonerate him from his intellectual cowardice. This is because deep down inside they know–as does everyone else who has followed his and my writings–what the outcome would be.”

    You can read the full text of Danios’ latest article at the link below:

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/06/danios-of-loonwatch-accepts-robert-spencers-challenge-to-a-debate/

    Looking forward to your response Mr. Spencer and here’s hoping we can move this process forward as soon as possible.

    Regards,
    Patriot (LW Fan)

  40. says

    Patriot,

    Danios also challenged me. I’ve read what Danios wrote in Part 2 of the “Intellectual Huckster” article about the word dhimmis, and his June 17 article which you cite. I’ve already posted rebuttals to those articles but Danios hasn’t addressed them. More importantly, he hasn’t provided any evidence to support his bizarre claim that only Muslims, not non-Muslims, could be blameworthy or “guilty” of breaking the dhimma. I have provided evidence that they can of course break the dhimma contract, which logically would make them blameworthy/guilty for doing so. That is only one of the issues addressed.

    My main rebuttals* can be found in Robert’s original JihadWatch thread titled “The dhimmis: guilty people.”

    *
    Kinana of Khaybar | June 8, 2010 8:07 AM | Reply
    Kinana of Khaybar | June 8, 2010 7:37 PM | Reply
    Kinana of Khaybar | June 13, 2010 6:33 AM | Reply
    Kinana of Khaybar | June 15, 2010 8:55 AM | Reply
    Kinana of Khaybar | June 17, 2010 8:42 AM | Reply
    Kinana of Khaybar | June 18, 2010 5:06 PM | Reply
    Kinana of Khaybar | June 19, 2010 10:09 AM | Reply

    I have posted additional supportive material in that thread.

    As long as that thread remains open, I believe it should be possible for Danios or anyone else to go there and debate me. (But it’s up to the moderators, not me, whether the old thread is kept open).

  41. says

    Or, to put it another way, I sense that Mr. Serwer’s glib toleration of supersessionist Islam merely expresses his intellectual conceit, as does his blithe dismissal of the Ikhwanist menace. My wordiness, on the other hand, merely expresses my own intellectual conceit.

  42. says

    “…or will I merely be attacked personally for pointing out the obvious?”

    I would like to point out the obvious …

    It is obvious that you are antisemitic — oh, but don’t take it personally.

  43. says

    Question’s been answered and the evidence has been presented many, many times before at JW.

    I suggest you check the JW archives.

  44. says

    Jon,
    I don’t believe there is any value in using personal attacks. I’ll focus on the substance of what you claim. Based on the Goldstone Report, you say it is “obvious” that Hamas and Hizballah do not approach Israel in the scale of terror. That is your first mistake. Your conclusions are certainly not obvious. If your case were substantive, you would not have to rely on mere rhetoric such as “it’s obvious.”

    Here’s an alternative, and I think far more reliable, account of the Goldstone Report, from the Huffington Post:

    The Goldstone Report is much more scurrilous than most of its detractors (and supporters) believe. According to the report, Israel used the more than 8,000 rocket attacks on its civilians merely as a pretext, an excuse, a cover for the real purpose of Operation Cast Lead, which was to target innocent Palestinian civilians — children, women, the elderly — for death. This criminal objective was explicitly decided upon by the highest levels of the Israeli government and military and constitutes a deliberate and willful war crime. The report found these serious charges “to be firmly based in fact” and had “no doubt” of their truth.

    In contrast, the Mission decided that Hamas was not guilty of deliberately and willfully using the civilian population as human shields. It found “no evidence” that Hamas fighters “engaged in combat in civilian dress,” “no evidence” that “Palestinian combatants mingled with the civilian population with the intention of shielding themselves from attack,” and no support for the claim that mosques were used to store weapons.

    The report is demonstrably wrong about both of these critical conclusions. The hard evidence conclusively proves that the exact opposite is true, namely that:

    1. Israel did not have a policy of targeting innocent civilians for death. Indeed the IDF went to unprecedented lengths to minimize civilian casualties; and

    2. That Hamas did have a deliberate policy of having its combatants dress in civilian clothing, fire their rockets from densely populated areas, use civilians as human shields, and store weapons in mosques.

    What is even more telling than its erroneous conclusions, however, is its deliberately skewed methodology, particularly the manner in which it used and evaluated similar evidence very differently, depending on whether it favored the Hamas or Israeli side.

    I have written a detailed analysis of the Goldstone Methodology, which is now available online here [PDF]. It is being sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations for inclusion in critiques of the Goldstone report received by the United Nations. This analysis documents the distortions, misuses of evidence and bias of the report and those who wrote it. It demonstrates that the evidence relied on by the report, as well as the publicly available evidence it deliberately chose to ignore, disproves its own conclusions.

    The central issue that distinguishes the conclusions the Goldstone Report reached regarding Israel, on the one hand, and Hamas, on the other, is intentionality. The report finds that the most serious accusation against Israel, namely the killing of civilians, was intentional (and deliberately planned at the highest levels). The report also finds that the most serious accusations made against Hamas, namely that their combatants wore civilian clothing to shield themselves from attack, mingled among the civilian populations and used civilians as human shields, was unintentional. These issues are, of course, closely related. If it were to turn out that there was no evidence that Hamas ever operated from civilians areas, and that the IDF knew this, then the allegation that the IDF, by firing into civilian areas, deliberately intended to kill Palestinian civilians, would be strengthened. But if it were to turn out that the IDF reasonably believed that Hamas fighters were deliberately using civilians as shields, then this fact would weaken the claim that the IDF had no military purpose in firing into civilian areas. Moreover, if Hamas did use human shields then the deaths of Palestinian civilian shields would be more justly attributable to Hamas then to Israel.

    Since intentionality, or lack thereof, was so important to the report’s conclusions, it would seem essential that the report would apply the same evidentiary standards, rules and criteria in determining the intent of Israel and in determining the intent of Hamas. Yet a careful review of the report makes it crystal clear that its writers applied totally different standards, rules and criteria in evaluating the intent of the parties to the conflict. The report resolved doubts against Israel in concluding that its leaders intended to kill civilians, while resolving doubts in favor of Hamas in concluding that it did not intend to use Palestinian civilians as human shields. Moreover, when it had precisely the same sort of evidence in relation to both sides — for example, statements by leaders prior to the commencement of the operation — it attributed significant weight to the Israeli statements, while entirely discounting comparable Hamas statements. This sort of evidentiary bias, though subtle, permeates the entire report.

    In addition to the statements of leaders, which are treated so differently, the report takes a completely different view regarding the inferring of intent from action. When it comes to Israel, the report repeatedly looks to results and infers from the results that they must have been intended. But when it comes to Hamas, it refuses to draw inferences regarding intent from results. For example, it acknowledges that some combatants wore civilian clothes, and it offers no reasonable explanation for why this would be so other than to mingle indistinguishably from civilians. Yet it refuses to infer intent from these actions.

    Highly relevant to the report’s conclusion that militants did not intend for their actions to shield themselves from counterattack is that the Mission was “unable to make any determination on the general allegation that Palestinian armed groups used mosques for military purpose,” “did not find any evidence to support the allegations that hospital facilities were used by the Gaza authorities or by Palestinian armed groups to shield military activities,” did not find evidence “that ambulances were used to transport combatants or for other military purposes,” and did not find “that Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat activities from United Nations facilities that were used as shelters during the military operations.” There is, however, hard evidence that Hamas did operate in mosques and, at the very least, near hospitals. Circumstantial evidence (precise weaponry) was used to prove Israeli intent. Regarding Hamas, the circumstantial evidence even stronger in inferring intent. It is beyond obvious that militants do not fire rockets in the vicinity of mosques or hospitals because it is easier to launch rockets near community institutions. Rather, they do so only because of the special protections afforded to hospitals and religious centers in war.

    The report — commissioned by an organization with a long history of anti-Israel bigotry, and written by biased “experts,” with limited experience and a pre-ordained result — is one-sided and wrong in its fundamental conclusions. This should not be surprising since conclusions can be no better than the methodology employed, and the methodology employed in this report is fundamentally flawed.

    So now it is up to Richard Goldstone to explain the evidentiary bias that is so obviously reflected in the report, and that is documented in my lengthier analysis available online. The burden is on him to justify the very different methodologies used in the report to arrive at its conclusions regarding the intentions of Israel and the intentions of Hamas. Failure to assume that burden will constitute an implicit admission that the conclusions reached in the Goldstone report are not worthy of consideration by people of good will.

    Not only is what you say not obvious, Jon. It’s wrong.

  45. says

    I won’t attack you personally, though I must say that I find you a person of deplorabe judgment, but will merely assert that Israel is the only true democracy in the Middle East where the rights of Arab Muslims in Israel are greater by far than in any Arab country (interesting how this is continually ignored by those so eager to castigate Israel).

    As for the Goldstone Report, it is as slanted and off-base as is the United Nations itself. Goldstone himself is a good example of a useful idiot. And it has been shameful how the Muslim world has used the so-called Palestinian Arabs as pawns in its campaign to eradiate Israel from the face of the earth. The Palestinians are played for fools time and time again by the Islamic sphere of mankind and they never learn. They deserve their fate.

    Finally, if only the Arab Muslim world would have let Israel alone from 1948 onwards, there would have been no wars and tragedies aplenty since that year to date (with the possible exception of the 1956 war). It is the Arab Muslim world that wants no Israel and not Israel that wants no Arab Muslim world. You know this or should know it. The root of the problem, the real root of the problem, is Islam itself, which breeds hate and intolerance on an unbelievable scale (fortunately the world is catching on to this more and more with each passing year). If 95% of the Arab world were Christian, Buddhist or anything but Muslim, 95% of the problems in the Middle East would not exist.

  46. says

    “Hamas and Hezbollah do not approach Israel in terms of the scale of their terrorism. Can anyone deny this with facts and evidence, or will I merely be attacked personally for pointing out the obvious?”

    First of all, self-defense is not terrorism as in the case of Israel.

    Secondly, if Hamas and Hezbollah had the ability, they will immediately wipe out Israel as they have vowed to do.

    Thirdly, the U.N. seems to have an incurable bias against Israel that blinds it to the many acts of terrorism by Hamas and Hezbollah.

  47. says

    Every time some new Jon, Dick, Hairy, Dunstan or Mohammad shows up here they demand the same old “answers” and “evidence” that we’ve amply provided before, so why do we have to jump through all their flaming hoops again and again and again?

    I think it might be a dedicated “tag team” effort to waste the resources and the energies of those of us who could be doing something more productive toward defeating Islamofascism, instead of arguing with Jihadis and their supporters all the time and having to “prove” over and over again (to intractible flat-earthers) that the earth is ROUND!

    -JW Arvhives
    -Search function (works very nicely)
    -I suggest we recommend it more often.

  48. says

    “Keep speaking truth to the unholy PC left/Islamist alliance; it’s no exaggeration to say that Western civilization basically depends on it.”

    You’re right – it’s no exaggeration.

    But, I don’t think you’re going to find much “truth” in your Islam Studies at school. So, you better stick around JW – that’s your school about Islam. JW is your classroom.

  49. says

    “Serwer ignores, of course, the fact that Ground Zero mega-mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is an open proponent of Sharia, which does subjugate women and non-Muslims and deny the freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.” — Robert

    Serwer also ignores the name of this mega-mosque: Cordoba House.

    Not only.

    Abdul Rauf is also on record saying he doesn’t believe in dialogue, while lying about it when it furthers the cause. Like all believing Mohammedans, he is a bald faced liar and a double dealing, conniving jihadist.

    Then there’s Daisy, who believes polygamy is above the law when Muslims do it, and besides: why resist the Islamization of America when Allah decided that we’ll all be Muslims anyhow?

    News from DownUnder:
    http://sheikyermami.com/2010/06/14/keysars-legal-jihad/

  50. says

    duh_swami says,

    …primitive intellect will naturally drift off to thoughts of food and sex…

    Me thinks that most men (high or low intellects) eventually “drift off to thoughts of food and sex.”

    Most to satiate the latter, then to sate the former.

  51. says

    IpsoFacto cites Popper in an attempt to discredit Robert: “But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.”

    But this citation just reinforces Robert, since the Moslems
    [1] are not prepared to use the level of rational argument;
    [2] denounce all argument;
    [3] forbid listening to rational arguments;
    [4] answer arguments with the use of fists or guns.

    So, while Popper prefers rational argument, he leaves open the option of stronger measures when rational argument is rejected by the intolerant. Moslems have made it abundantly clear that they do not accept rational argument.

  52. says

    I have no intention of discrediting Robert Spencer. I do however ask for clarification.

    You are just confusing the matter by selective quoting, leaving out the most relevant part and the reason I asked for clarification:

    “… I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. …” (Karl Popper).

    Robert Spencer never considered all Muslims the enemy:

    “Islam is not a monolith, and never have I said or written anything that characterizes all Muslims as terrorist or given to violence. To call attention to the roots and goals of jihad violence within Islamic texts and teachings, and to show how jihadists use those texts and teachings, says nothing at all about what any given Muslim believes or how he acts.”

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/about-robert-spencer.html

    So you are misrepresenting the views of Robert (and me) when you write:

    “But this citation just reinforces Robert, since the Moslems

    [1] are not prepared to use the level of rational argument;
    [2] denounce all argument;
    [3] forbid listening to rational arguments;
    [4] answer arguments with the use of fists or guns.”

    I talked about “Islamists and their useful idiots”, Robert about “jihadists” and you jump to the false conclusion that all Muslims are beyond rational arguments, denounce all arguments, forbid listening to rational arguments and answer arguments with the use of fists or guns. Exactly the criteria Popper stated that “gives us the right to suppress them if necessary even by force.”

    Let me ask you one simple question that will reveal how badly you distort the views of Robert Spencer.

    Did Robert, or did he not, take the initiative to a bus ad campaign giving Muslims rational arguments and help to leave Islam?

    My question to Robert Spencer remains open:

    “So the question is if Spencer no longer think that rational arguments will be sufficient to counter the intolerance of the Islamists and their useful idiots to save democracy, and in desperation he calls for a ban at this early stage of the clash of civilizations?”

    I think only Robert can answer this question!

  53. says

    Behind “Serwer” I detect “Sarwar.” That argues for the latter.

    And don’t forget his Christian name, “Adam”. Perhaps another proto-dhimmi, to join the ranks of Sirhan Sirhan, Danny Thomas, Kasey Kasem, Ralph Nader, etc. (perhaps I’m being too hard on some members of this list, but I do fault them for remaining mum on the subject of Islam during their lives, when they likely had much to share with the American people from family experiences and family histories of their recent Arab Christian ancestors in the Middle East: just think if Danny Thomas had imparted his familial knowledge of Islam to his daughter, Marlo, who in turn could have helped to educate that bloated Leftist she married, Phil Donahue, when he was influential on American pop culture).

  54. says

    “The UN has condemned Israel many times, and other Islamic states. They do it because Israel is presently occupying a foreign country and doing so in gross violation of international law.”

    You mean the Muslim UN?

    lol, Bugger off, Jon, as much-more-intelligent-than-you duh_swami already said.

    Oh, and btw – There are no “Palestinians.” They are all Arab squatters on ancient Jewish lands; they should go to Jordan, Syria, and other Arab countries.

    Bugger off, Muslim/Muslim Apologist

  55. says

    Why are you sending kudos to “Jon?”

    He’s a Muslim/Muslim Apologist. Did you misread his comments?

  56. says

    I hesitate to reply to you, Kim, because you really offer little of substance and I expect nothing but flames in reply, but I want to address this assertion that there are no Palestinian people.

    Many people regard the borders present in Arab territories as artificial and imposed by outsiders. They don’t think there should be distinctions between Saudi’s or Syrians or whatever. That’s a perfectly rational position. It’s like saying there is no difference between a Floridian and a Georgian. We’re all Americans.

    Here’s what matters. In 1948 roughly 750,000 Arabs were driven from their homes. They fled to such places as Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. Some went to what is called the West Bank. Others went to what is called Gaza. They were driven out by settler colonists in much the same way Indians were driven from the land by European settlers in the 17th century and following.

    In 1967 Israel invaded the refugee camps called the West Bank and the Gaza driving further Arabs off these lands and into what was then left of the West Bank and the Gaza.

    These Arabs in these territories, which include both Christians and Muslims, want an independent state. The Gaza is not even connected to Jordan, so how these people can be Jordanian is not clear to me. You seem to oppose this. You seem to think they should all just evacuate their homeland and where their ancestors have lived for centuries. I have to wonder what moral principle justifies this position? Do you think people should be allowed to evict you from your home and tell you to go live where your cousins do? For instance if you are living in America and you have German ancestry should Canadians simple kick you out of your home and confiscate it and just tell you to go live in Germany? Does this seem like an ethical thing to do?

    I am not advocating the right of return. I’m not suggesting that the people evicted from their homes should be permitted to return to them. What’s in the past can’t be changed. But what I think does make sense is to at least let Palestinians control the limited refugee camps they were driven into in 1948. The UN and the human rights agencies likewise adopt this position. Arafat was willing to go even further. He was ready to give up much of the settlement territory in the West Bank to Israel as well as much of East Jerusalem, all taken in violation of international law. The Arabs are prepared to accept a reasonable, peaceful settlement. Why do you oppose it?

  57. says

    What of all the Jews driven from their homes in 1948 from Arab occupied lands? Hundreds of thousands were, probably even more than Arabs who left their lands. And many of those Arabs left because they thought Arab victory and demolition of the new Israeli state were a foregone conclusion. Those Arabs who stayed became Israeli citizens with more rights than possessed by Arabs in any of the more than twenty Arab countries that now exist (why don’t you finally address this fact rather than continually ignoring it as you so noticeably have?).

    Two other points: The Palestinian refugee camps are representative of a cynical approach to dealing with what happened in 1948. Why no Jewish refugee camps? Answer that one, if you will. As for Arafat, if you don’t comprehend that his real goal was the total elimination of the Jewish state, then you are either a doofus or a dissembler. Arafat was one of the great terrorists of the twentieth century and had no intention of allowing for any Israel (or any Palestinian opposition to him if he could help it). You know this or should know it.

    Finally, the real reason why peace in the Middle East remains elusive is because Islam is the overwhelming religion of the Arabs. Can’t have anything but a Muslim country in the dar-al-Islam, now can we? Islamic doctrine demands no Israel and therein lies the root of the problem. Any contentions or suggested solutions to the contrary are evidence of mendacity or ignorance. I echo what Kim wrote above and that is that you “offer nothing of substance.” Nothing.

  58. says

    You can’t be as naive as you pretend to be—or can you? Israel is surrounded by millions of Muslims who want no Israel at all (if you deny this you are either ingenuous or deceitful). I would argue that Israel has acted with the greatest of constraints in light of the fact that the vast majority of the Muslim world wishes that Israel had never existed.

    As for Arab states voting for a peaceful resolution of the “conflict,” it’s always conditionalized by such things as the “right of return” or resumption of the 1967 boundaries, which would leave Israel extremely vulnerable (thus being merely steps in the process of eventually having no Israel at all).

    As for the photos you provided, these are demonstrative of the very cynical way in which Islamic terrorist groups like Hamas DELIBERATELY put civilians in harm’s way in order to insure more casualties. You know or should know that the IDF adheres to decent standards of warfare that dwarfs the disregard for life by every Arab military or Islamic group on earth. Deny this and I know you are a liar.

    Really, if this is the best you can do, give it up. And why have you not addressed what I have REPEATEDLY asked you before, such as Jewish refugees from the 1948 war and the disallowance by Islam of any non-Islamic state rising in land that was once part of the dar-al-Islam? Your silence here is deafening and noticeable to all but the wicked and obtuse.

    I tell you this, and you can continue to ignore it if you will, the world is catching on to the real nature of Islam and with each passing year more and more folks from all over the earth are grasping that Islam is like no other religion in man’s history. Not in a good way, I hope you realize, unless you’re a fool or one who thinks that Islam is a good phenomenon, which amounts to the same thing.

  59. says

    “Re: the problem of Spencer’s sentence —

    “Either we allow the propagation of such ideas [ideas from Sharia law] in the U.S. or we don’t.”

    The U.S.A. does not forbid the propagation of any ideas, including those of the Communist Party, the KKK, neo-Nazis, Satanists, etc. While three or four European countries have developed limited policies of making the propagation of certain ideas illegal – …”

    Thank you for taking your time to analyze and clarify the somewhat incoherent position expressed by Robert Spencer in the quoted sentence supported by an abriged version of Karl Poppers “paradox of tolerance”.

    A true democracy should not forbid the propagation of any idea – philosophy, religious or political belief – or make any idea unlawful. That is the democratic ideal.

    In the Danish Constitution the freedom of religion is not unlimited:

    “Section 67 [Right to Worship]

    The citizens shall be entitled to form congregations for the worship of God in a manner consistent with their convictions, provided that nothing at variance with good morals or public order shall be taught or done.”

    As Islam teach polygamy and male dominance over women (and a whole lot more in conflict with our moral and directly against the law and penal code) why is Islam not banned?

    No religion has ever been banned in Denmark but I suspect that PC and fear of Muslims is the main reason this question has never been asked in Parliament – not even by the Islam critic Danish People Party.

    Because religion and politics is one and the same in Islam maybe it could be banned as an illegal association with reference to section 78 in the Constitution:

    “Section 78  [Freedom of Association]

    (1) The citizens shall be entitled without previous permission to form associations for any lawful purpose.

    (2) Associations employing violence, or aiming at attaining their object by violence, by instigation to violence, or by similar punishable influence on people of other views, shall be dissolved by judgment. …”

    That was also a no go. The Danish People Party tried twice in vain to make the government ban the radical Islamic party Hizb-ut-Tahrir after hate calls to “kill Jews where you find them” was posted on their website and distributed as handbills in the streets of Copenhagen. The spokesman for HuT was convicted twice for racism and sentenced to prison for 60 days.

    The Director of Public Prosecutions concluded in his legal opinion about HuT that there was no legal gound for banning and that the state most likely would lose such a case at the tribunals. So the Government did not dare to go forward with a ban.

    I understand the frustration of Robert Spencer but it is out of the question to ban Islam or even to ban the most aggressive, violent and harmful parts of Islamic teachings. If we do that we can hardly claim to have a free and open democratic society. If we try to protect democracy with undemocratic means then we loose it, and if we don´t we might also lose it. I see no way out of this dilemma. Do you?

  60. says

    “Finally, the real reason why peace in the Middle East remains elusive is because Islam is the overwhelming religion of the Arabs. Can’t have anything but a Muslim country in the dar-al-Islam, now can we? Islamic doctrine demands no Israel and therein lies the root of the problem. Any contentions or suggested solutions to the contrary are evidence of mendacity or ignorance. I echo what Kim wrote above and that is that you [Jon]”offer nothing of substance.” Nothing.”

    Thank You.

    “Islamic doctrine demands no Israel and therein lies the root of the problem.” – Wellington

  61. says

    “I completely agree with the reactions of Kim and Wellington to Jon.”

    Thank You.

    “And in the big scheme of history Israel is a tiny spec compared with what Muslims took from others and kept and the world has acquiesced to that since.” – Demsci

    Uh huh, a tiny spec. And yet the rabid Jew-hating Mohammedans want it too, as well as all the other land in the Middle East they stole from the Judeo-Christians. Muslims are the bullies of the world.

    How the “rop” propaganda got started I can’t imagine.

  62. says

    Hamas’ own charter calls for the obliteration of the Israeli state and yet Israel calls for the obliteration of no Arab state. Indeed, the Jews would have long ago (as far back as 1947-48) agreed to a Palestinian Arab state that was peaceful, democratic and prepared to live alongside Israel in harmony. But PRECISELY because the Arab Muslim world has always wanted no Israel at all (regardless of false overtures by Arabs after they’ve had their ass wupped for the upteenth time by the sterling quality of the IDF, a military which accords itself in the finest tradition of a civilized force, not that you would comprehend this), Israel finds that it must defend itself against ordinary Arab polities (Iran too) as well as Hamas and other barbaric terrorist organizations (e.g., Hezbollah) which seek the utter elimination of Israel.

    Will civilians be killed at times when Israel is forced to defend itself from thousands of missiles launched indiscriminately into Israeli territory or when, as in previous times, entire Arab states gloated over the impending destruction of Israel (e.g., Nasser’s Egypt on the eve of the Six-Day War)? Yes, of course, just as innocent German and Japanese children were tragically killed when Allied bombing during WWII occurred. But the fault for these deaths lay with Hitler, Tojo and their ilk, not with the British and Americans. Ditto for any deaths of Palestinian Arabs from Israeli measures designed to thwart the continued campaign to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth.

    As for the US “catching on,” no it isn’t. It’s only the clueless, feckless, cowardly and stupid Obama Administration which is turning against Israel and which is completely out of sync with the vast majority of the American people. Man, you are so out of touch. As I averred before, your judgment is deplorable.

  63. says

    “Which side of history do you want to be on?”

    Your question is profoundly presumptuous, feckless and ill-conceived. In general, your comments concerning Israel are full of rancor, and they serve to demonstrate your utter lack of a moral compass. Wellington is right ..your judgment is deplorable, indeed.

  64. says

    So Wellington, let’s note the issues you failed to address. I argued that though Arabs don’t really want an Israeli state that’s irrelevant because they are prepared to accept it. You didn’t respond. You argued that the “right of return” was a demand of any peaceful settlement and I showed that this was false. You didn’t respond. You argued that Hamas uses human shields, but I showed that in fact it is Israel that uses human shields. You failed to respond. You allege that I ignored certain arguments you made but I showed that’s false. You failed to respond.

    So your method now is to bring up another slew of arguments to serve as cover for the arguments you failed to address. Fine. Let’s do those as well.

    Hamas’ Charter calls for the obliteration of Israel. Fine. Likud’s Charter calls for the obliteration of a Palestinian state. Is that a problem for you as well? See here:

    http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2010/06/additional-sources-for-debate-material.html

    The fighting that occurred in 1948 occurred on territory that was designated as Palestinian by the UN. What happened is Israel pushed the indigenous people beyond the UN mandated borders and did so for weeks. Finally when they declared themselves a state the Arab armies entered to resist the expulsions. They failed. So what? Does this justify Israel’s rejection of a peaceful settlement today? Shall we punish the grandchildren and their descendants as well because in 1948 Arabs resisted handing the keys to their homes over with no compensation? The Arab world stands at the door ready to accept an independent Israeli state with secure borders. The rest of the world minus the US agrees. Why not join them?

    Civilians could die in a defensive struggle and that could conceivably be justified, but what Israel does is not defensive. It is offensive. Israel broke the cease fire that Hamas observed scrupulously on Nov 4 (same day as the US presidential elections so nobody would notice). When Hamas retaliated with their pathetic rockets which killed zero Israel used this as a pretext to slaughter the residents of Gaza which resulted in the photos that you should take a look at. Something like 12 Israeli’s died in the whole conflict, about half due to friendly fire. That’s not defensive. That’s a massacre plain and simple. And you’re leaving a record of yourself defending it. Consider that.

  65. says

    “…but what Israel does is not defensive. It is offensive.”

    You’ve just gone on record as a liar …

  66. says

    First of all, the Arabs are not prepared to accept an Israeli state. They conditionalize on this so much that it amounts to zilch. The Arab Muslim world wants no Israel in the final analysis but is prepared to be very patient and get what it can in increments, especially in light of the fact that it has performed so dismally in warfare against Israel and can’t do in Israel this way. You only need half a brain to realize this.

    Second, Likud is not a terrorist organization. Hamas is. I don’t blame Likud for not wanting a Palestinian state though, because Likud knows that it would be a terrorist state. If a Palestinian state came into existence that was peaceful, democratic and prepared to live in true harmony side by side with Israel, I have zero doubt that Likud’s position would dissipate quite rapidly. Meanwhile, Israel is a democratic, free country where Israeli-Arabs can criticize the government openly in ways that are simply not possible for Arabs to do in any Arab country (and again you ignore this stunning fact). You show deplorable judgment by juxtaposing Hamas and Likud.

    Third, the 1948 war occurred because the Arabs made it crystal clear to everyone that the 1947 UN partition plan was not an option and that no Jewish state should come into existence out of the remaining 22% of the original British Mandate, only about half of said land to be Jewish, never mind that some 78% of the Mandate had, in the early 1920s, already been cordoned off to create Transjordan where, incidently, no Jews were allowed. In fact, even before May of 1948, Arabs had begun violence against Jews in order to thwart the creation of Israel. What the Jews then did was to respond to this aggression, create the state of Israel and proceed to defeat the Arabs everywhere and do what most victorious powers in war have done throughout history which is annex land taken in martial conflict (sort of what Muslims did back in the seventh and eighth centuries and beyond except that Israel created a free society and Muslims created repressive societies aplenty). Your revisionist history won’t stand up to scrutiny. In fact, terror against Jews was whipped up as early as the 1920s when that psychopath and Hitler admirer, Haj Amin al-Husseini, orchestrated the first attacks against Jewish settlers. Yes, the Jews responded to this, and some even resorted to terrorism (e.g., the Stern Gang), but the difference is that the bulk of the Jewish population reined in their rogues while the Arabs to this day never have. Actually, the Arab world as a whole is one giant rogue. At the very least, the Arabs are the most dysfunctional major people on the planet.

    Really, you have such a screwed up reading of the past that it is truly pathetic. Hamas is not rooted in proper law or a proper moral order. The state of Israel is. Thus, you draw conclusions from a set of false premises. Damn sad. Damn erroneous too. And, for the record, only the stupid part of the world takes the side of the Arab Muslims in the campaign to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth. You’re part of this world. (And please don’t tell me again that the Arab world is prepared to accept the existence of Israel. That’s a lie. Certain individuals like King Abdullah of Jordan are prepared to do so but the Arab world as a whole wants the total destruction of the Jewish state.)

  67. says

    Wellington – well said.

    My own guess is that ‘jon’ despite his assumed ‘western’ name, is a Mohammedan, plain and simple.

    If he isn’t, he might as well be; for in every posting he betrays precisely the Mohammedan mindset that ‘mary’ has summed up for us in her posting of June 14 8. 51 pm, immediately prior to your 8.56 pm posting.

    If he’s *not* a Mohammedan, he has failed to factor taqiyya and kitman and the famous Treaty of Hudaybiyya and allah the Best of Malicious Plotters into his equations; that is, he fails to recognise that of the two cultures, the Hebrew and the Arab Mohammedan, it is the Hebrew/ Jewish culture that in general (apart from the odd nutter and traitor, such as Chomsky) produces people with a painful regard for objective truth and truth-telling at all costs, and the Arab Mohammedan ‘culture’ that produces people for whom objective truth has no value at all: all that matters is saying whatever will dupe your ‘marks’ into believing whatever you want them to believe for long enough for you to get what you want (and what’s wanted is, very often, shoving a knife between the dupe’s shoulder-blades). Once I found out about Islam’s doctrines of deception, and about the significance of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, the whole ‘Middle East situation’ suddenly ceased to be confusing, since Occam’s Razor enables one to deduce that, in general, those elaborate, tearfully related, dramatic Arab Muslim stories about da Wicked Deeds of Da Eevil Jooz, are a pack of disgusting lies mingled with a small number of deliberately twisted and decontextualised fractions of truths.

  68. says

    Thank you Wellington for defending Israels right to exist and defend itself against its jihadist enemies – and for doing it so very well against an opponent who tries to rewrite history seen from an Arab perspective.

    There is not much to add to your excellent and consistent refutal of the fantasies (or is it taqyia?) of your opponent.

    Only one point in your reply could need further clarification:

    “What the Jews then did was to respond to this aggression, create the state of Israel and proceed to defeat the Arabs everywhere and do what most victorious powers in war have done throughout history which is annex land taken in martial conflict (sort of what Muslims did back in the seventh and eighth centuries and beyond except that Israel created a free society and Muslims created repressive societies aplenty).”

    It is true that armed conquest of new territory have been done throughout history by the victorious powers, but is this still legal be international law?

    In the aftermath of the Six Day War the UN Security Counsil unanimously adopted Resulution 242 on November 22, 1967. It states in its preable the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security.” Completely in line with the text in Article 2 of the UN Charter.

    John McHugo says that by the 1920s, international law no longer recognized that a state could acquire title to territory by conquest. Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations requires all members to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

    Michael Lynk says that article 2 of the Charter embodied a prevailing legal principle that there could be “no title by conquest”. He says that principle had been expressed through numerous international conferences, doctrines and treaties since the late 19th Century. Lynk cites the examples of the First International Conference of American States in 1890; the United States Stimson Doctrine of 1932; the 1932 League of Nations resolution on Japanese aggression in China; the Buenos Aires Declaration of 1936; and the Atlantic Charter of 1941.

    Surya Sharma says that a war in self-defense cannot result in acquisition of title by conquest. He says that even if a war is lawful in origin it cannot exceed the limits of legitimate self-defense.

    Israel did not anex the territories conquered in the 1967-war, but it did keep (most of them) occupied in order to improve its securety against yet another attack from its Arab neighbors.

    The historian Bat Ye´or finds the principles expressed in Resolution 242 admirable but also absurd:

    “throughout history have always been acquired by force. What constitutes the international legitimacy of states? Ottoman Palestine was conquered by force by the British in 1917. In the 1948 war against Israel, Egypt took Gaza by force. Abdullah´s Arab Legion – under the British General Glubb Pasha – occupied Judea and Samaria by force, as well as the old city of Jerusalem. All the Palestinian Jewish inhabitants of these areas were expelled. Moreover, except for Arabia itself, all the countries that today are called “Arab” had been conquered by Arab jihad armies.

    What criteria should determine the irreversability of a conquest and an injustice: the occupation of a land, or its liberation? Did non-Muslim populations “occupy” their own countries: Spain, Portugal, Sicily, Greece, Bulgaria, Yoguslavia, Romania, and Armenia? Was it not rather the indigenous populations of these countries who freed themselves from Muslim occupation?

    Is the state of Israel the legitimate expression of a free people, whose land had been Arabized and Islamized by one of the cruelest forms of persecutions against its indigenous Jewish and Christian population, or an unjust ursurpation of a land conquered by jihad and ruled by the dehumanizing laws of dhimmitude?” (Quoted from Eurabia – The Euro-Arab Axis, 2006, by Bat Ye´or).

    In my opinion Israel did not exceed the limits of legitimate self-defense in keeping the territories conquered in the 1967-war occupied. Israel can not rely on any Western power to secure its borders. Its closest allay the US never made a security agreement based upon the same principles as the North Atlantic Treaty, which would imply that an attack on Israel should be considered as an attack on the US. In this uncertain situation Israel had no alternative but to rely on itself an its own capabilities to defend itself. And without the occupied territories as a buffer zone Israel would be de facto defenseless.

    So I find strong legal and moral reasons for Israel to keept the West Bank accupied, at least until such time that its existence and security is no longer threatened. Peace is an illusion especially with the present US administration who think they can force Israel to commit suicide. There is no political and no military solution to the problem until the security of Israel is credibly guaranteed by a NATO-like treaty combined with US boots on the ground with a robust mandate to use the necessary force against any provocation or attack on Israel. Such a force would have to do exactly what Israel did in Gaza in Operation Cast Lead or against Hezbollah and its rocket launchers in Libanon. But the US could do it much more unrestricted than Israel did, for the simple reason that they are not Jews – no doubble standards here. That would scare the jihadist shitless and prevent further attacks. But it is, alas, a fantasy as history has shown.

  69. says

    “My own guess is that ‘jon’ despite his assumed ‘western’ name, is a Mohammedan, plain and simple.”

    Yes, definitely. Also that he refers to Jews as “Zionists” is a tell-tale sign. Plus, he sides with the Jew-hating Islamic Terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Yep, he’s a Mohammedan.

  70. says

    Yes, dda, trusting a Muslim’s word on a matter like territory in the Middle East, what with what you mentioned and also all that dar-al-Islam nonsense about never reverting to dar-al-harb again, makes me deeply suspicious of any promises made by Muslims about anything in the Middle East, or anywhere for that matter. The Islamic world has only itself to blame for being seen by an increasing number of people as untrustworthy. Untrustworthiness is actually a feature of Islamic doctrine in that Muslims can tell the kuffaar anything he wants to hear only to renege when the time is right and it is imperative that non-Muslims understand this.

  71. says

    Thank you for your comments, Ipso Facto. The territories I was referring to were not those taken in the Six-Day War but rather small amounts of territory that were alloted to the intended Arab state in the 1947 UN partition plan. Since no states already existed in this area in 1947 and early 1948, when war came in the Spring of 1948 and the new state of Israel proved victorious against its enemies, the adding to this new state of land that were supposed to make up a new Arab state (which, of course,, did not come into existence) was a kind of unique situation which, I would argue, did not conform with any standard rules of acquiring territory in warfare. Take Jerusalem, for example, which was supposed to an international city under UN auspices and the “seventh” part of what was left of the old British Mandate. Well, Israel took West Jerusalem and Jordan took the eastern section. Sort of a no man’s land pertained in 1948 and so first come proved the rule which international law really did not have a clear answer for.

    I would, though, vigorously assert that Israel should always keep all of Jerusalem (since Jordan’s hold on it for nineteen years hardly made it Jordanian), though what to do with the West Bank and Gaza remains an unresolved difficulty because the Arab Muslim world is simply not prepared to create a small state alongside Israel (one that it could have had since 1948 onwards, which makes all the ensuing wars and tragedies so useless) which would live in true peace with the Jewish state and be free and non-aggressive. What a waste these over sixty years have been and this is due first and foremost to the traditional Arab negotiating position—-the Arabs get most everything and the Jews get morsels at best and probably nothing.

    I do have to wonder, though, if international law doesn’t need an update. If State A, which is more than prepared to live within its borders, is regularly attacked by States B,C and D and defeats B,C and D again and again, shouldn’t there be an allowance for State A to finally say enough is enough and any further attacks on our State will result in both expulsion of peoples and annexation of territory after victory comes again? I think a good logical and ethical case could be made for such a deterrent initiative.

  72. says

    No one was required to evacuate their homes when the 1947 UN partition plan was drawn up. Jews in Arab sections could remain and Arabs in Jewish sections could too. Trouble was that the Arab Muslim world wanted no Jewish state at all and so war ensued.

    As for your contention that the UN has voted on news borders for Israel, I don’t quite know what you mean here. Ambiguity has existed over what constitutes “the territories” or “territories” taken by Israel in the Six-Day War. Certainly many Arabs, after having been so badly defeated in that war, are now prepared to have Israel go back to its pre-1967 borders, but I see this as a ruse in a larger plan to eventually have no Israel at all. Besides, tell me why it’s OK for 20% of Israel to be Arab but it’s not all right for 4% of the West Bank to be Jewish.

    Respecting the UN, in 1947 it had credibility. It still did in 1950 when it authorized resistance to naked aggression by North Korea. But after that the UN increasingly became a forum where representatives of dictators come to lecture representative of democracies on what they were doing wrong. It has also become a tool of the Islamic world which kind of half owns the UN as of present. In short, the UN has dissolved into a moral cesspool and I for one would like to see America and other democracies withdraw from it. I would suggest that the UN could then set up headquarters in Tripoli or Pyongyang or Tehran or some other city where freedom does not exist and where at least hypocrisy would also cease to exist. Understand well that my contempt for the modern UN is complete.

  73. says

    Jon, Maybe the Democratic countries agree by and large the 1967 borders and retreat of Israel therein. And they would also certainly agree to compensate somehow the descendants of refugees, now still living in camps.

    But what you stay silent about is the big security question for Israel as well as the part of the Saudi plan to implant hundreds of thousands hostile descendants of refugees inside Israel. You don’t address the absurdity of this self-evident dealbreaker.

    I think the difference in voting between Israel, America and other Democratic countries merely reflects the difference in opinion about security-needs for Israel.

    Ehud Barak indeed offered 97 % of the Westbank plus compensation in 2000. But your map showed settlements in the Palestinian territories. Well, our map shows Arab Islamic minorities prominent in Galilee. Both states should accept to harbour a minority of the other!

    Lieberman by the way already mused about letting the Arab Muslims in Galilee go over to the Palestinian state in exchange for some Israeli settlements on the Westbank.

    Israeli Arabs vehemently protested to this exchange! This was pleasing because thus they admitted to prefer the Israeli democracy over the Palestinian state, democratic or not. But again it was shown who are the refusers of reasonable peace, not the Israeli’s, but the Islamic Arabs in “Palestine”.