Great photo! Natan Sharansky knows and has suffered from the evils of Russian communism and Muslim Jihad

Posted by: dennisw at November 29, 2005 11:51 AM

I hope your book helps Sharansky to better understand the eternal Jihad of Islam

Posted by: dennisw at November 29, 2005 11:52 AM

I am on the left, and the great human rights defender Natan Sharansky is on the right

I thought there wasn't any Left and Right on this website.

Posted by: Interested at November 29, 2005 12:18 PM

Robert -
Did you have a chance to talk to Natan Sharansky about Iraq and Bush's approach to bringing democracy to Iraq as a way to fighting jihad?
I only have some comments from him from 1 year ago.

The only quote that I have from Mr. Sharansky is:
http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.943/transcript.asp
"As to Afghanistan and Iraq, I think it's a very important and very positive process which is taking place. Of course, it's true that there is a mess. It's true, I think, that not everything was planned as it happened. But if you go back to the experience of Germany and Japan, imagine for a moment that there were elections in Japan or in Germany at the end of '45. No doubt the Nazi regime would come to power again, and the military regime of Japan would come to power again, and control there was much bigger than control here. But I think it goes in one direction. It's clear that terror has the power to resist, but what's really important is whether then the Iraq people will have more and more opportunities to enjoy freedom and appreciate freedom. And I believe that from this point the process is developing exactly this direction."

Posted by: jeffreyimm at November 29, 2005 12:19 PM

Cool!

Posted by: Gorkhali at November 29, 2005 12:21 PM

Interested~ there is a third person in the center- balance has been achieved!

Posted by: Gary at November 29, 2005 12:21 PM

Gary - there must be a fourth person too - the one taking the picture.

Posted by: Interested at November 29, 2005 12:25 PM

I am on the left, and the great human rights defender Natan Sharansky is on the right

And the one in the middle is the singer. ('hem - sorry)

That is a lovely photo, your visit to Israel was obviously emourmously fruitful for you, on many levels. God bless.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at November 29, 2005 12:25 PM

While going through my morning routine of reading as much of the news on Yahoo!(TM) as is humanly possible while trying to maintain a living, I came across the story of the Crying Virgin Mary in Sacramento, CA. Read it if you want but miracles are not a point of this post.

As is oft when I read any news story, there appears another link with a title that I just can't resist. So when I saw in the links under Opinions and Editorials the title The Christians are Coming! The Christians are Coming!, my interest was piqued by this parody of an old movie title and I just had to read further.

Waht I found was a light hearted but heartwarming article written by Jack Englehard, a Jew, wishing all Christians a Merry Christmas. An excerpt:

But Elie Wiesel tells another story. This goes back two centuries ago in Eastern Europe. A great rabbi was walking along with his pupil and as they passed a church they noticed a Gentile walking by. "Never do business with that man," said the rabbi. "He walked past his own church and didn't cross himself."

That's the point. We love it when Christians are true to their Christianity. This makes us safe. As long as you go on being truly Christian we can go on being Jewish, or whatever we want. Isn't that the deal we've got going from both ends? Love thy neighbor, right? Yes, that is the deal.

Merry Christmas to you, Happy Hanukkah to me. We've done it like this for some 200 years and it works.

It was in the comments following the article that special note was taken in a review of Englehard's book, The Bethsheba Deadline...

Special note: Bestselling author Robert Spencer calls it "courageous, a rousing thriller"

Thank you Mr. Spencer for all of your hard work, for having the intenstinal fortitude for providing this website that attempts to unite this oft fractious community and for having the courage to speak publicly against an ideology that to itself freedom of speech and conscience are alien concepts.

Posted by: Lisa at November 29, 2005 12:31 PM

It is, of couse, essential that the Israeli government understands that jihad is central to Islam, and is an inescapable imperative for Muslims. It is also essential that the Israeli government understands that this imperative (and all of its corollaries) is the reason why lasting peace with the Arab world in general, and the "Palestinians" (thank you, Hugh et al., for elucidating why the notion of the "Palestinian people" is a falsehood) in particular, is impossible. I hope that Sharansky will read Robert's books, take them seriously, and insist that every member of the Israeli government read them as well. Robert's books (along with this website) are utterly vital to the survival of Western civilization, but it looks as if our own government does not fully understand what Robert et al. are warning us about.

Posted by: commonsense at November 29, 2005 12:37 PM

Sharansky is quoted above for his belief that "democracy" being brought to Iraq and Afghanistan, or rather the greater degree of freedom, will work. Being a moral hero, just likie being a battlefield hero does not entitle one's views to some kind of automatic respect. Sharansky's views have so far been formed without careful consideration or knowledge of, Islam. Once he sets his mind to studying the matter, and thinking about it, one suspects he will be less naively hopeful about "democracy" (Sharansky's stated views were immediately taken up, without much thought, by some in Washington who, though far more naive than Sharansky, took his book as some kind of gospel, ran with it, and alas, haven't looked back once, perhaps feeling that if they did they would turn into pillars of salt, and such turning into Spice Girls, or Spice Boys, or Spice Boys and Girls Together, would be infra dig. Besides, if they showed they had any second thoughts about their certainties, they appear to believe that there would be political hell -- not to mention the gabelle -- to pay.

Posted by: Hugh at November 29, 2005 12:42 PM

It’s important to understand how hard it is for people to strip their cultural worldview and approach another society without the baggage of preconceived notions. Most people think of prejudice as a negative preconceived notion but positive predispositions can be just as harmful. I have no doubt that human nature is such anyone can potentially appreciate liberty. There’s just one hitch: evil ideas can crush the human spirit, warp natural desires, and induce a cynicism that paralyzes the average individual.

As long as the ball-and-chain of Islam weighs down the average Muslim, the ability to withstand tyranny, establish a parliamentary system, sustain a liberal order, and vigorously fight for the dignity and freedom of the individual will be but a dream. The tree of Islam is rotten because of its roots. Re-planting it into an enriched soil will just make it grow faster. But as I said, it is hard for people to face the unpleasant facts about other cultures.

But in truth there is hope.

Posted by: JasonP at November 29, 2005 1:06 PM

I think Sharansky will understand.

If, in a mohammadan society, a person can publically criticize (really, just regurgitate facts and state the obvious) about Mohammad, without fear for their life, then that society passes the litmus test which
(I believe) Sharansky set forth. Sounds good to me!

But we all know that winged pigs will be flying
through the frozen wastelands of Hell before that
happens...

Posted by: American at November 29, 2005 1:13 PM

It's important to note that while Sharansky believes -- contrary to many on JW/DW -- that it is possible to introduce Western-style democracy to the Arab Middle East, he conditions any concessions by Israel on the bona fide acceptance and institutionalization of those democratic principles by the Palestinians. To that extent, his vision for peace between Israel and the Arabs is strictly performance-based which is also the modus operandi of the original Road Map and early speeches made by GWB in support of a Palestinian state. That is why Sharansky opposed the something-for-nothing Gaza disengagement.

The problem of late is that the performance milestones of the Road Map have been jettisoned by the Bush WH in favour of a damn the torpedoes approach to establishing a Palestinian state -- replete with terrorists and arms -- before the end of his term.

Like trying to play ping pong minus the pong and wondering why the ball always rolls under the sofa.

Posted by: Charles Martel at November 29, 2005 1:27 PM

"Performance milestones" mean nothing. Concessions are temporary. The ideology of Islam cannot permit an Infidel nation-state within the Dar al-Islam, just as ultimately it cannot permit any Infidel nation-states anywhere. In what way would this ideology of Islam be changed, mitigated, or disappear if Israel, in a fit of collective craziness (of which the Israelis, or some of them, appear out of emotional exhaustion, out of desperation, out of the correctly-sensed feeling that they are and will forever be under siege), were to shrink into still smaller, still less defensible borders, and with that population of Muslims inexorably growing within Israel as well as without? The concepot of the Roman limes, the marches, strategic depth -- well, Israel asks for so pathetically little of that, in fact it acts for nothing, in fact it seems willing to give up its overwhelming claim to territory which, on completely indpeedent grounds -- legal, moral, and historic -- it has a claim far superior to all others, and certainly to those local Arabs, renamed the "Palestinian" people, whose "since-time-immemorial" presence in the area can be easily traced, in most cases, to the last half of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century. But who wants to worry about demographic data and cadastral records, when it is so much more fun to be properly indignant about Israel?

Posted by: Hugh at November 29, 2005 1:37 PM

Robert? Don't you realize that getting your picture taken with Natan Sharansky automatically earns you another 3 fatwas?

Posted by: Mahdi Al-Dajjal at November 29, 2005 1:53 PM

Although one can easily argue that Israel's peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan are merely cold peace treaties -- hudnas -- buying time while the greater war continues through proxies (the Palestinians) and on other battle fields (world politics, demographics), Israel cannot turn back the clock to a time when there were no UN resolutions demanding the return of territory captured in the 1967 war or indeed, when the UN itself, Russia and Europe could be counted as supporters of a sovereign Jewish state. Those days are long over and it is incumbent on those who argue that Israel should not deal with the Palestinians to propose how Israel would survive the inevitable -- and imminent -- political, economic, and military sanctions, academic and cultural boycotts, international ostracism, and the loss of American political cover in the UN if she were to close the door on a similar peace treaty with the Palestinians.

Sharon is not a neophyte and although he may not be erudite as some on the history of Islam, he understands -- better than most -- Arab psychology and the long war Israel faces: he has been quoted as saying that Israel must be prepared to wait 100 years or more for a sustainable peace. Is the EU or the US prepared to wait that long?

In reality, Israel is today, holding a losing hand. Short of a direct appeal to America's 50 million Evangelical Christians to pressure the WH and Congress to abandon the call for a Palestinian state, Israel's only strategic hope is to buy time and political capital while the greater Jihad unfolds drawing the West closer to total war with Islam. Tactical retreats, demands for democratization and the disarming of terrorist groups, security fences and truces are about the only cards Israel has to play.

Posted by: Charles Martel at November 29, 2005 3:22 PM

Nice company to be keeping, Robert. Now if we could only see a photo of you standing next to GW Bush with him holding your books...

Posted by: special_guest at November 29, 2005 3:37 PM

Israel is under no obligation, given the farce of the Arab-Muslim bloc forming, as it has for the past thirty years, the only solid bloc at the U.N., to recognize any U.N. Resolution. But it does. It chooses to recognize Resolution 242. Resolution 242, analyzed at great length by all sorts of people. One was Raymond Aron, who in his French pamphlet on the wording discussed in detail the differences, in English and French, of the phrase "withdrawal from territories" and "withdrawal from the territories" and in French, how both phrases became "des territoires." Another was the great Australian jurist (whom Roscoe Pound, Dean of Harvard Law School, regarded as one of the greatest writers on jurisprudence of the past century) Professor Julius Stone, whose unanwerable and exhaustive discussion of Israel's right to hold onto the West Bank (and Gaza -- a right it has now, for shallow calculations of raison d'etat, forfeited)-- needs to be consulted. And there was the study of what Resolution 242 means by a previous Israeli ambassador to the U.N., whose name now escapes me. The important thing in that resolution is that Israel is required, or not required but asked, to withdraw to "secure and defensible borders." It is up to Israel, now understanding or being forced to understand, the nature of the relentless and endless Jihad, and of the instruments of that Jihad, to calculate precisely what those "secure and defensible borders" are. And it is up to the sensible non-Israelis, as they themselves pass judgment on what that phrase "secure and defensible borders" might mean, to keep in mind the asymmetries of wealth and population between the Jews of Israel and the Arabs, and even the Muslims, not only in the immediate vicinity, but all over, and to consider carefully what, if they were Israelis, if they lived in Israel, if their children and grandchildren would have to be worried about, what they would consider to be "secure and defensible borders."

As for the phrase "Sharon is not a novice" -- what does this mean? He is a military man. He is a politician. He has not distinguished himself as a student of Islam, a student of Muslim psychology, or a thoughtful man. He is an abrupt man, who likes dramatic gestures. He is a stubborn man, and an autocratic one, who feels free to decide what he thinks best, even if he in doing so betrays completely the solemn commitments he made to those who elected him. I think he is a fool, and I think he is a dangerous fool. And in not finding him impressive, any more than one finds that Fool of Chelm Peres impressive, or Rabin, or that sentimentalist (as he proved to be, so eager to be loved: "Sadat and Carter like me. They really like me.") Begin, they all show that from 1920 on, Jews in what became Israel had only a handful of clear-sighted leaders, and even they had not factored in Islam. How could they? They just did not know enough; for them it was enough that "the Arabs" (including Christian Arabs, or islamochrstiians) were against them, and that, for decades, the main worry had to be the threat of the Nazis. Few in the Western world until recently bothered to investigate Islam, and Muslims themselves, until they acquired the OPEC wealth, and what power it gave them to aggressively push Da'wa, and until they found themselves allowed to settle, amazingly, behind what they consider to be enemy, because Infidel, lines, knew about Islam. Why should the Israelis have been any more attentive than people in France or England or Belgium or Spain?

Posted by: Hugh at November 29, 2005 3:38 PM

Nice company to be keeping, Robert. Now if we could only see a photo of you standing next to GW Bush with him holding your books...

Doesn't Sharansky have Bush's ear? Or was that a one-shot deal?

Posted by: Benjamin at November 29, 2005 4:21 PM

I'm familiar with the ex post interpretive accounts by distinguished British and Israeli legal scholars dissecting the language of UN resolutions and the agonized analysis of the all-important "the" in the phrase calling on Israel to withdraw from captured territories. And if the conflict in the Middle East was one that was truly governed by international law and covenants, by an accurate reading of history, and by fair play, Israel would be in a position to be able to determine for itself and without succumbing to pressure from the EU and the US, exactly what constitutes "secure and defensible borders". Indeed, we wouldn't be having this discussion because the conflict would have long since been resolved with the Palestinian Arabs resettled in the 78% of the Mandate awarded them and the Hashemites after the British reneged on the Balfour Declaration instead of in squalid refugee camps sponsored and perpetuated by the Europeans and the UN.

But in that alternative universe called the Middle East where international law only applies in cases where it can be brought to bear against Israel, where -- as I write -- the archeological record is being systematically destroyed and where both ancient and contemporary history are being rewritten to excise Jewish ties and claims to the Holy Land, Israelis must deal with the realities of a world which is aligned against them.

The question remains Hugh: how will Israel survive the inevitable and imminent political, economic, and military sanctions, academic and cultural boycotts, international ostracism, and loss of American political cover in the UN if she chooses to close the door on a peace treaty with the Palestinians?

Posted by: Charles Martel at November 29, 2005 4:47 PM

some of the Arabic-speaking Christians with whom I am in daily contact -- believe fervently that Israel is the aggressor against an innocent and aggrieved Palestinian people

With very good reason.

Mr Robert Spencer refers to Arab Christians as if they are being unfair in calling for right of return to their homes in Israel, they're request to able to return to they're homes in the birth place of Christ is objectionable. Israel prevents them because Israel is for Jews and not Christians.

Mr Spencer infers that they call Israel an enemy out of fear If they support Israel, they risk being targeted by the jihadists, who surround them on all sides.

Mr Spencer reports that Israel has assisted Christians many, many times, but cites only an example of Israelis killing Hamas terrorists. Israel has not helped Christians "again and again".

Arab Christians had their lands confiscated, homes destroyed and were made refugees during the formation and expansion of Israel. A large number of these Christian people sought refuge in the USA. Strongly faithful they joined local churches and local communities becoming good and honest citizens of the United States.

20% of the Palestinian population was Christian, they were unwelcome in Israel because they were not Jews. They are treated as second class citizens in Israel (dhimmitude). Some Christian Arabs that remained and did not flee their homes live in villages that have existed since for hundreds of years, however the State of Israel refuses to recognise that these buildings are real. Permits are not issued for additions, because the building being added to is not real. New roads, water mains, powerlines are built to Jewish villages well before Christian. The Christians pay their taxes and are not provided equal treatment, they are dhimmi.

Israel confronts Christians, makes them second class citizens - but Christians are not enemies of the USA.

Mr Robert Spencer has toured this country that practices dhimmitude and Mr Robert Spencer approves.

Posted by: unaha-closp at November 29, 2005 5:08 PM

"The question remains Hugh: how will Israel survive the inevitable and imminent political, economic, and military sanctions, academic and cultural boycotts, international ostracism, and loss of American political cover in the UN if she chooses to close the door on a peace treaty with the Palestinians?"
-- from a posting above

A "peace treaty with the 'Palestinians'" will not only in the end be meaningless, but get in the way of understanding the situation. The Israelis, just like the Europeans, have got to comprehend their real, as opposed to their wished-for, situation. Should they manage, somehow, to do that (I think both Golda Meir and Jabotinsky would have been able to, from quite different perspectives, but as for the current crop, I don't know).

You seem to think that an endless conflict is unmanageable. Nonsense. The Cold War was billed as an endless conflict. Who could have imagined, visiting the Soviet Union in 1950, or 1960, or 1970, or 1980, that the whole think would, from within, decompose? Who would have thought that a sufficient number of intelligent Party members would themselves have realized that Communism was a failure? Who could have imagined the voluntary relinquishment by Russia of the non-Russian republics?

For that matter, who in 1913 could imagine what happened in 1914? In 1914, what happened only in 1919? In 1930, what would happen in 1939? In 1953, what would happen to the Soviet Union forty years later?

It is not impossible for Israel, with several hundred nuclear weapons, and the ability -- and it must possess the willingness -- to use them, or even to offer a demonstration in, say, the Empty Quarter if it comes to that, to maintain itself, if it simply holds on. And Western Europe has a choice: it can come to its senses, and protect itself, save itself, and not only save itself (god knows if any Western society is worth preserving as it is currently constituted), but save the legacy of the West that the current inhabitants of both Europe and North America received, and have treated so carelessly, wantonly, negligently.

The West Bank may be a headache. So? You don't cut off your head because you have a headache. The Israelis may have failed to make their case, and the Europeans have, in their moral squalor and mental confusion, failed to accept what case Israel has managed to make, and have failed as well to make their own. If you think the problem is only with Isreal, look at the atrocious coverage of the Muslm attacks, with twelve churches burned, and synagogues attacked, and rioters screaming Allahu Akbar, by the press both within France, and without. A complete lack of understanding, an eagerness to believe that these riots, this mass insurrection, is clearly prompted in the end by Islam, whatever the invocations of "poverty" and a handful of non-Muslims who lived in the same neighborhoods and were too scared not to go along with the overwhelmingly Muslim attacker -- well, the unfairness to France has been incredible. And many of the French, like many of the Israelis, exhibit the same mental defenses. That is, they do not want to see reality because it is too painful, and if they hide it from themselves, despite the evidence of history and the canonical texts, despite the clear demographic trends which can either be faced now or, in a far more dangerous situation, faced later, continue to believe that somehow it "has nothing to do with Islam."

Israel should sit tight. Let the Musliims in Gaza deal wtih each other as they will. Attempt to persuade the West to drop its continued payment of Jizya to the "Palestinians" as to other Muslims. Attempt to explain why any peace treaty -- like the "Peace Treaty" you recommend in your posting above -- not only is likely to, but MUST be breached, as soon as it possibly can, by the Muslim side. The example of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyyah is not temporrary. It is the permanent model of Muslim jurisprudence, regulating all agreements and treaties between Muslim powers and Infidels.

Memorize that. Try to help the Israelis and the Americans and the disgusting panjandrums of the E.U. to memorize that. This isn't Suarez and Vitoria and Grotius and Vattel and Lauterpacht calling the Muslim shots here. This isn't Pacta Sunt Servanda. This is Islam. This is the law of treaties on Islam. Read Majid Khadduri. And if you feel like it, weep.

I'm not weeping. I just want a little common sense, bleak as its application may be.

Posted by: Hugh at November 29, 2005 5:36 PM

AHA! You finally admit it! You are on the left! (JK)

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at November 29, 2005 5:41 PM

what they would consider to be "secure and defensible borders."
Hugh at November 29, 2005 03:38 PM

During the first week of September 1990, some of my friends in London showed me a coin with the map of the ‘Greater Israel.’ Possibly, the ‘Greater Israel’ stretching between the Nile and the Euphrates possibly has the “secure and defensible borders.”

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at November 29, 2005 5:45 PM

It's been quite a day at jihadwatch. First we have Naseem letting the mask slip, then we have "unaha-closp" defending the islamochristians from the bad bad Israelis, and then we have JW's favourite Muslim conspiracy theorist, Mohideen.

unaha-closp,
Maybe the Israelis would treat the Arab Christians better if they weren't so adamant in siding with the Muslims to destroy Israel. Some of the worst Palestinian propogadists have been Arab Christians (Edward Said, Hanan Ashwari, Suha Arafat) and Arab Christians have been at the forefront of the Pan-Arab movement (Michel Aflaq created Baathism and George Habash created the PFLP). And let's not get into the theology because most of these Arab Christians are Orthodox Christian and they still consider Jews to be reponsible for the death of Christ. But because they are Arab, they think the Muslims will love them if they can out-hate them when it comes to the Jews. Well sorry unaha-closp, you can't complain if the Israelis treat them with suspicion when Arab Christians act so anti-Semitic towards the Israelis. And if you are so concerned about the Arab Christians' homes, then how to you respond to that pogrom that was perpetrated by Muslims in Taybeh back in September? Since there were no Jews involved, I kind of doubt you'll even care.

Posted by: igor at November 29, 2005 6:08 PM

You seem to think that an endless conflict is unmanageable. Nonsense. The Cold War was billed as an endless conflict

You can't seriously be arguing that Israel's situation and that of the US during the Cold War are analogous. America -- the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world -- was allied with the entire free world against the Soviet Union and its satellites. She had the economic and military resources to counter every Soviet threat, every weapons programme, every strategic geopolitical maneuver. Israel relies on the US for over $3 billion in financial aid, over 1/3 of its exports, essential spare parts for a multitude of weapons, and UNSC vetos. The EU also accounts for over 1/3 of Israeli exports. The loss of these markets would be enough to suffocate Israel within months.

It is not impossible for Israel, with several hundred nuclear weapons, and the ability -- and it must possess the willingness -- to use them, or even to offer a demonstration in, say, the Empty Quarter if it comes to that, to maintain itself, if it simply holds on

Everyone knows Israel possesses a nuclear arsenal so flexing her muscle with a test is unnecessary. What you're saying is that subsequent to her refusal to cede land to the Palestinians and the inevitable international sanctions to follow, Israel would be forced to launch a first strike at an Arab or European target to demonstrate her determination to maintain the status quo.

Hugh, you have an impressive breadth of knowledge on Islam and history generally, but your policy prescriptions are a dead-end. Literally.

Posted by: Charles Martel at November 29, 2005 6:33 PM

From an email I received...
The opening of the Rafah Crossing on November 25 was another blow to the tiny nation of Israel. It seems that every time the U.S. is feeling the squeeze from oil-rich O.P.E.C. bigots, the Secretary of State rushes off to Israel for another full-court press demanding that Israel give up something.

Israel made a huge sacrifice in 1990 when it was the target of 42 of Saddam Hussein’s SCUDS. Hussein even threatened to launch chemical and biological weapons on the SCUDS. The Jews were terrified because of what they had endured during the Holocaust.

I remember the SCUD attacks well; I had gone to Israel to comfort the Jewish people and saw the brilliant night-time sky as Patriot missiles intercepted and destroyed the SCUDS.

What was Israel’s reward for accommodating Arab bigots and not retaliating? A $10 million loan guarantee was frozen, causing Russian emigrants to be stuck in tents and tiny rooms. The U.S. was using their crisis as an economic noose around Israel’s neck.

It did not escape my notice that for at least some part of Secretary of State Rice’s trip to Israel before Thanksgiving, she was in the company of former Secretary of State James Baker (a member of President George H.W. Bush’s cabinet.) They attended the ceremonies surrounding the anniversary of the assassination of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

Following Operation Desert Storm, Israel was forced to the peace table at the Royal Palace in Madrid. I was in Madrid for virtually every session of the conference. The Syrian Foreign Minister arrogantly told me that he planned to accuse Israel and Prime Minister Shamir of being terrorists. I spoke up that week for the Jewish people at world press conferences, and was the first to confront James Baker.

I asked Mr. Baker, “Why can’t America recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital? Secondly, we are moving a military presence into the Arab world for security. Why can’t we have a military presence in Israel to help its security? It has suffered so greatly, and has especially paid a dear price during the Persian Gulf War.” Baker was upset by my remarks and said he refused to be entangled in a fruitless debate and that the status of Jerusalem should be determined by negotiations.

I was at the White House ceremony in 1993 when the U.S. pressured Yitzhak Rabin to sign a peace accord with the infamous terrorist, Yassir Arafat. I was sickened to see Senators standing in line to get Arafat’s autograph. A former Speaker of the House said to me, “I used not to like that fellow, but after his charming speech I find him very delightful.” Jesse Jackson smugly said, “The Jews need to follow the Golden Rule, and give the Palestinians their state.”

Yassir Arafat had no intention of ever making peace with Israel. It was never about having a state; it was about destroying a state: Israel.

Please ask President Bush today to halt the policies that allow terrorists attacks against the Jewish people.

I had the rare privilege of being at the state funeral of Prime Minister Rabin ten years ago. I was totally shocked when the three American presidents that attended the funeral met at the King David Hotel to talk about how they could push the Oslo Accords forward. This document included the division of Jerusalem.

And now, Israel has yet again been forced to make concessions that endanger its very existence. The newly-opened Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt will provide an open pipeline for terrorists to import the materials needed to launch new, and perhaps deadlier, attacks against Israel.

Please sign the petition to President Bush today. Ask him not to continue the policies that allow terrorist attacks against our staunchest Middle East ally, Israel.

Speak out by signing our petition to President Bush today.

Your Ambassador to Jerusalem,

Mike Evans

Posted by: Carolyn2 at November 29, 2005 7:22 PM

Here is the petition,
http://tool.donation-net.net/entrance/enter.cfm?dn=1032&source=2036&id=138475&commid=33360589&CFID=1392085&CFTOKEN=39890896

Posted by: Carolyn2 at November 29, 2005 7:27 PM

>During the first week of September 1990, some
>of my friends in London showed me a coin with
>the map of the ‘Greater Israel.’ Possibly,
>the ‘Greater Israel’ stretching between the
>Nile and the Euphrates possibly has the “secure
>and defensible borders.”

Then why on earth did Israel give up the Sinai peninsula??? If they wanted to get to the Nile, it was rather foolish to give up that land. Last I checked Israel never initiated any agressive war to claim the land between its border and the Euphrates river.

This nonsense comes from the Biblical passage where Abraham is promised that the entirety of the aforementioned area would inure to his descendants. If the Israelis can ignore a passage in their scripture, perhaps the Muslims can start ignoring Sura 9, but I suppose that is too much to ask.

Posted by: Darius LaMonica at November 29, 2005 7:32 PM

I think it would be a great day when the "Arab" Christians (we'll include Assyrians and Copts as a sop to common perceptions) can flock back safely not only to 'Eretz Yisrael, but also to Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, the Hatay and Urfa regions of Turkey, and even central Arabia itself--as long as they leave enough folks back in the West to keep the rest of us stocked with baklava! Better yet, it would be great if the lands of Cyprian and Augustine were re-Christianized, too.

As for a Nile to Euphrates Israel, they had it back in the days of Solomon, ca. 960 B.C. That was when the promises and prophecies to Abraham were fulfilled. Modern Israel is justified on a whole different set of grounds.

Posted by: Kepha at November 29, 2005 7:35 PM

The notion that Arab Christians have a difficult time in Israel is belied by any number of telling facts. Christian sites are scrupulously taken care of, and available to all. It has not been the Israelis who took over the Church of the Nativity, used it as a place from which to fire, vandalized it, defecated within it -- but the usual "Palestinians" (it hardly matters to discuss which group "claimed credit" for whatever it was doing). It has not been the Israelis who have been terrorizing Christians in Bethlehem, leading to a steady drop in their numbers. So terrorized are the local Christian Arabs that it had to be the new Francsican Guardian of the Christian Sites to tell the truth about the matter -- for only he could, given his position and authority, escape Muslim Arab punishment. The current mayor of Bethlehem is a classic islamochristian, denying up and down the land (and to a clearly skeptical BBC interviewer) that there is "no problem" for Christians in Bethlehem, and pooh-poohing that little business about a declining Christian population, and grandly asserting that "of course" (or was it the Arab "for sure") his own children, now studying in -- guess where? the United States -- would be returning to good old, safe-for-Christians, Bethlehem. Right.

The whole business of how Arab Christians, outside of those whose numbers have heretofore been sufficient to guarantee a certain security, and hence a certain confidence, and hence a certain ability to tell the truth about Islam, is discussed in two of Bat Ye'or's books, "Islam and Dhimmitude" and "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam." These books should be read and thoroughly assimilated by all those who wonder where it all went. Where did the Christians of North Africa go, the land where many of the early Fathers of the Church came from? What happened to that Christian civilization that produced Tertullian and then St. Augustine of Hippo? And what happened, over time, to the once-entirely Christian Coptic land of Egypt, after the Muslim Arabs invaded? And what happened to the Nestorians of present-day Iraq, and the Christians of Syria, and even those of the Arabian Peninsula? What happened to them?

For anyone who wants a concise statement of what Islam means for Christians, do google the name "Habib Malik." Habib Malik, the son of the most eminent Lebanese statesman, the late Charles Malik (who understood the menace of Islam completely, and who lived in a different period, when Lebanon, the redoubt and refuge of the region's Christians, was slowly but inexorably islamizing, as so many places will if nothing is done to prevent it). That essay should also be printed out and shared.

The best example of "islamochristianity" is not Naim Ateek, busily pushing his anti-Israel resolutions through this or that bureacracy of sinister or silly Christians completely oblivious to, often wilfully oblivious to, the nature of Islam, its tenets, its history. Nor is it Hanan Ashrawi, such a close and good friend of the late Peter Jennings. Nor is it Archbishop Cappucci, the icon-stealer and seller, and gun-runner for the PLO. No, the best example of an "islamochristian" just trying to find some way for Christian Arabs to find a place for themselves in a dangerous Muslim neighborhood, is Michel Aflaq of Damascus. It was he, and a "secular" (for what that word is worth in this context) Sunni Muslim who came up with Ba'athism, which took much of its rhetoric and organizational ideas from the Fascists and Nazis of Europe, but in its essence, offered a way of downplaying Islam, and substituting not quite as an alternative, but as a variant upon the dream of a world-wide united caliphate, the dream of a united Arab world. This pan-Arabism, in which Islam would be de-emphasized, was naturally popular in two places, and only two: Syria and Iraq. And this was for obvious reasons. In both, an already ensconced minority, constantly on the alert against a majority that was different in its brand of Islam, had to find a way to disguise its rule within an ideology that might appeal to others outside the small ruling elite.

In Syria, while the Alawites, who had been turned by the opportunities that the French offered them to form an officer caste, through their military control came to rule the country. They are a small minority, barely 12% of the population. But they have the planes and the tanks, and when there are threats from the "real" Muslims (who deplore the Alawite worship of Miriam, and other syncretistic features of this most unorthodox version of Islam), those "real" Muslims can be mowed down by the forces controlled by the Alawites. Think of Hama. Yet, Ba'athism allows some "real" (i.e. Sunni) Muslims, and of course Christians too, in small numbers, and also a few Kurds, to join the government, and to seem to be part of a "national" movement which merely disguises Alawite rule.

In Iraq, too, the Sunnis, who now make up less than 20% of the population, found that once the monarchy and the ancien regime was gone, Ba'athism could be used to draw off some Christians, and some Shi'a, into what was really a Sunni despotism. This became particularly useful after the 1958 coup which ended the Hashemite monarchy, and saw "strongman" Nuri al-Said hacked to bits, and his mutilated corpse further mutilated as it was dragged around the streets of Baghdad, so that excitable crowds could do just what they have done to American contractors in Fallujah, or American soldiers wherever they can watch them roasted alive, and come out to jump up and down and enjoy the fun, screaming with hysterical pleasure. Tariq Aziz (a Christian who dutifully islamized his name)proved to be the right spokesman to the world. Shi'a (even Allawi) who were secular, found that the Ba'athist Party, whatever else it might be, stood for the proposition, now being so obviously undone, that a Shi'a theocracy would not prevail, as it necessarily would if the Shi'a themselves prevailed.

So that was Ba'athism. Another desperate effort to escape from the anguish of being a Christian Arab (save for the Maronites and the Copts, who have been, many of them, at least until recently, more self-assured). It didn't work. Not even for Michel Aflaq. On his deathbed, he converted to Islam. In the end, "arabness" and "Islam" are for so many so inextricably bound up, that even those Christian Arabs cannot recognize their real enemy, and keep pretending, ululating along with the Muslims who scare them, against the putative Israeli enemy.

But times have changed. The figures on Christains in Bethelehm and elsewhere are clear. The desperation of Arab Christians to be allowed to settle in Israeli-held Jerusalem, or in Arab villages elsewhere, or to leave for Canada, Australia, America where possible (and it should not be possible if those "Christians" bear with them essentially the views of Islam, for then they become, objectively, bearers of the Muslim menace even if they seem, outwardly, and no doubt think of themselves inwardly, as "Christians"), is also clear.

Meanwhile, in this country, a clever campaign is afoot to convince Lebanese-Americans that they are to regard themselves as
"Arab-Americans." A transparent attempt to enroll in a Muslim campaign, through the appeal to a putative shared -- entirely meretricious -- identity, to convince the descendants of those who fled the Middle East precisely because they were Christians, especially those Maronites who were not merely not Muslim, but in fact mere Arabic-users and not Arabs at all, for they had lived in the area, as Maronites, before the Arab Muslim conquerors came in, and if they remained Maronites (many must have succumbed to Islam because the status of dhimmi was for so many unendurable), yet learned Arabic, this did not --except in the definition of an "Arab" that the Arabs themselves insist must count -- never became Arabs. And why should they?

Many Christians from Lebanon, once they get out, quickly throw off in the secure West their dhimmitude, their fear, and speak their minds about Islam. Others don't quite manage to, or do about Islam but continue to take a dim view of Israel. It is hard, of course, if you have been imbibing anti-Israel nonsense all of your life, to quite so quickly throw it off, but it can be, and often is, done. And one should expect all those who continue to call themselves, as if this "nationality" invented after 1967 was in fact a permanent state, with easily recognizable unique characteristics ("Palestinian" language, "Palestinian" religion, "Palestnian" folktales, stories, and dances -- oh, sorry, there's been a real bull market in creating that instant past with Palestinian" folktales, stories, and dances, which are so transparent in their origin that it would be too easy to mock).

Certainly those Christians who arrived in this country from from Lebanon and Syria frm 1890 to 1950 (in the early days, their Ottoman-Empire passports might read "Turco" or ""Turk" or "Syrian"), had none of that anti-Israel or indeed the slightest anti-Western feeling. They knew what Islam was all about. For one example of this, read "Syrian Yankee" by Salomon Rizk, which appeared about 1954.

One could go on. But why bother? Start with Habib Malik on Islam, then visit the websites of Brigitee Gabriel and Walid Shoebat, and Nonie Darwish, and take it -- va va va voom -- from there.

Posted by: Hugh at November 29, 2005 7:44 PM

unaha-clasp, can you tell me if Saudis would be more generous to Christian Arabs? would they allow them to keep their bibles in Saudi Arabia...mmmmm... could they have a Christian Church built there?? mmmm..... can you answer this????

Posted by: Lulu at November 29, 2005 7:46 PM

Well, Mohideen, if those are the borders Israel requires for its security against the your co-religionists who seek its annihilation and genocidal slaughter of its Saturday people, then so be it, for Allah knows best. Ameen.

Posted by: Lisa at November 29, 2005 8:42 PM

Lulu,

unaha-clasp, can you tell me if Saudis would be more generous to Christian Arabs? would they allow them to keep their bibles in Saudi Arabia...mmmmm... could they have a Christian Church built there?? mmmm..... can you answer this????

In your comparison of religiously pure states Israel wins versus Saudi Arabia.

The Sauds hound Christians out of the country, force them to live as second class citizens, deny them equallity and allow them no churches. This makes the Sauds about the lowest pieces of scum around. Israel drove most of their Christians into exile and offer no hope of return, it forces those who remain to live as dhimmi, but allows existing churches to remain. This means Israel is a better place to be non-Jewish than Saudi is a place to be non-Sunni Arab (faint praise indeed).

Igor,

Please see the above. Zoinists and Islamists are two sides of the same coin. Both preach the superiority of their religion and enforce purity by excluding others not of the same faith. This is the worst possible way to behave.

Posted by: unaha-closp at November 29, 2005 8:53 PM

Arab Christians had their lands confiscated, homes destroyed and were made refugees during the formation and expansion of Israel.

[...]

20% of the Palestinian population was Christian, they were unwelcome in Israel because they were not Jews. They are treated as second class citizens in Israel (dhimmitude).

Israel confronts Christians, makes them second class citizens - but Christians are not enemies of the USA.

Posted by: unaha-closp [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 29, 2005 05:08 PM

unaha-closp:

There's a monsterous difference between having your lands expropriated and fleeing in response to exhortations from the neighbouring Arab armies who have promised to eradicate the immigrant Jewish population who had, up to that point, purchased vacant and desolate land.

The Christian population of the region has largely allied itself with the Muslims against the Jews, whether they were the native Jewish population that always resided in the area or the more recent arrivals from Europe and did so out of their age-old hatred of Jews for the crime of rejecting Christianity.

Compare the situation of the native Christian population (which may speak Arabic, but isn't ethnically Arabic at all) within the confines of Israel with that of the Christian population of Lebanon. I'd hazard a guess that the former are faring better than the latter despite the fact that the former have given aid and comfort to the jihaddists for decades.

The URL below links to an article posted today on frontpagemag.com, written by a Lebanese American, Dr. Joseph Hitti, about the dhimmified behaviour of the Lebanese people in the face of Hezbollah and the Syrians. Similar to the situation of their Lebanese brethren, if the Christian population of Israel is suffering, it's because of their alliance with the jihaddists against Jews.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20340

Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 29, 2005 8:55 PM

About this Nile-to-the-Euphrates "Greater Israel" business. Let's assume there is something to it, absurd as it all is, a transparent projection of Muslim claims to the whole world, which means that Dar al-Harb, wherever it may be, is permanently under threat, for it is permanently claimed by Islam.

In 1921, when the British lopped off all of Eastern Palestine, some Jews protested this violation of what they, and by the way all the non-Jews who made up the membership of the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations, had believed to be a solemn commitment by Great Britain.

In 1956, the Israelis, fed up after 19,000 raids by Egyptain fellahin across their borders (blowing up tractors, setting fires to fields, killing whatever Jews they could find), seized the Sinai. Why then did they give it back so readily, merely for a set of promises from Nasser--i.e. not to remilitarize the Sinai, not to blockade the Straits of Tiran, to open the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping -- all of which Nasser broke, some at once, and some later on.

In 1967, when after the Six-Day War of June the Israelis found themselves in possession of that Sinai peninsula again (right to the "Nile") and also of Gaza, and of the "West Bank" (as the Jordanians had attempted to rename Judea and Samaria, the names used since -- no, even before -- Jesus had used them), why didn't they just annex, make part of Israel, all those territories? The Arabs could have done nothing. OPEC did not yet exist. They could have booted out, as the Arabs do to non-Arabs and even to fellow Arabs, those they deemed a security risk. So why didn't they, if they are so consumed with this idiotic "Greater Israel" Idea that is merely the Muslim design on the world projected on to tiny, Connecticut-sized Israel?

And why haven't they since done so? And why did they give up the Sinai, for the second time, a Sinai into which they had poured $16 billion in infrastructuyre (roads, oil fields, and so on), to an Egypt that offered in exchange a handful of promises, all of which to this day remain unkept? And why did they then, this past year, give up Gaza, the historic invasion route into their country? Why?

If the Israelis really are planning on a "Greater Israel" that extends from the Nile to the Euphrates, some one -- perhaps Mohideen Ibramsha himself -- should break it to them. They're not going about it the right way.

Posted by: Hugh at November 29, 2005 8:57 PM

unaha-closp wrote:

"Zoinists [sic] and Islamists are two sides of the same coin. Both preach the superiority of their religion and enforce purity by excluding others not of the same faith. This is the worst possible way to behave."

I hate to break this to you, but "Zoinism" isn't a religion, but a largely secular movement to re-establish a Jewish state in Palestine. That part of it is done. Zionists exclude others insofar to ensure the security of Israelis. Due to the unique history of the Jews, it is important that the majority of their population in Israel remain Jewish lest they face another Holocaust, this time orchestrated by Arabs. Every nation has a right to sustain the majority population and Israel is no different. And Judaism is not a supremacist religion. Only anti-Semites like David Duke, Michael Hoffman, and Israel Shahak think it is. But it is the only Western religion that doesn't condemn non-believers to hell (unlike Christianity and Islam does). And before you try to dig up quotes from the Talmud to "prove" that it is a supremacist religion (largely from neo-Nazi and Muslim sites no less), please read the following before you do. Unlike the ahadith, the Talmud is very complex and it takes place during a discourse with some arguments having more weight than others. The ahadith on the other hand (provided it derives from Bukhari and Muslim) is all authoritative. If you think Zionism and Islamism are both equally as dangerous, then you aren't fighting against jihad because although you recognize the right of Christians to defend themselves from jihad, you don't grant the same right to Jews. And by legitimizing Muslim greivances (especially against Israel which the Jews have always had a historic right to), you only embolden them and weaken the position of non-Muslims everywhere. Anti-Semitism hinders the anti-jihad.

Posted by: igor at November 29, 2005 10:15 PM

Zoinists for a Jewish state. Islamists for a Muslim state. Big difference I know.

I listed reasons for Christians to be against the State of Israel. Igor you listed Christians who have taken up the fight against Israel:
"Some of the worst Palestinian propogadists have been Arab Christians (Edward Said, Hanan Ashwari, Suha Arafat) and Arab Christians have been at the forefront of the Pan-Arab movement (Michel Aflaq created Baathism and George Habash created the PFLP)." These are some enemies of Israel. To accept that Christians like these attacked the WTC on 911, that Christians like these kill school children in Beslan, that Christians like these are behind the massacres that occur daily in Iraq is a difficult thing to do.

Mr Spencer says that the enemies of Israel are the enemies of America. Mr Spencer is wrong, there were no Christian suicide bombers, but there are Christian enemies of Israel.

Even after Islam is neutered, Palestinians and Israelis will still be enemies.

Posted by: unaha-closp at November 29, 2005 11:08 PM

If the Israelis really are planning on a "Greater Israel" that extends from the Nile to the Euphrates, … They're not going about it the right way.
Hugh at November 29, 2005 08:57 PM
The Israelis are already at the banks of the Euphrates. Only time would tell when they would reach the Nile.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at November 29, 2005 11:23 PM

Gush Katif has been turned into terror training camps.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47587

Posted by: Carolyn2 at November 29, 2005 11:30 PM

Those IDF troops better check their GPS, they think they are at the banks of the Jordan.

Posted by: Lisa at November 29, 2005 11:33 PM

Sir Natan.. Sir Robert and Sir Hugh,, true Knights
of The Order of Veritas..

Posted by: otterfisher at November 30, 2005 12:26 AM

So, that is Hugh in the background!

Posted by: Lisa at November 30, 2005 12:41 AM

Hugh,
You never seem to be either left or right - just where the truth is. I have been visting your website for a long time and have not found anything on this site to be misleading. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. Your truths will follow in my son's generation and his after.

Posted by: typesetter at November 30, 2005 12:42 AM

That's Hugh in the background? Too funny! But you're wrong.. No, that's his son.

Posted by: Mahdi Al-Dajjal at November 30, 2005 8:41 AM

Even after Islam is neutered, Palestinians and Israelis will still be enemies.

Posted by: unaha-closp at November 29, 2005 11:08 PM

Ah, yeah, unaha-closp, you're right take away the steady barrage of propaganda transmitted to Palestinians by the PA, other Islamic governments, historical revisionists and we're still left with some of the Christian bigots like Naim Ateek and you aren't we?

Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 30, 2005 9:24 AM

That's Hugh in the background? Too funny! But you're wrong.. No, that's his son.

No, it's Warren Mitchell, fine actor and Tottenham Hotspur supporter.
http://www.mynewham.co.uk/newham/celebs&gossip-warren_mitchell.htm

Very good bloke! My Mum once got the better of him in a stage/audience banter.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at November 30, 2005 9:41 AM

Here's an explanation as to what lengths certain parties are willing to go to, to ensure Israelis and "Palestinians" remain enemies per unaha-closp's prediction. Sadly, the co-conspiritors are "left wing Jews".

Courtesy of the Justify This blogspot:

How To Invent The News (And Blame The Jews)

A couple of days ago, the mainstream media reported that the regular target of liberal fascism, Jewish "settlers", had cut down a load of olive trees that we can only assume belonged to Arabs (non white, non Jews, the only people the media feel have the right to self preservation).

Sounds simple doesn't it, they even provided a picture (click the picture for the original link) :

(here is the caption the AP provided) Palestinian Mahfouza Odeh, 75, reacts as she hugs a cut olive tree in an olive grove in the West Bank village of Salim near Nablus Sunday Nov. 27, 2005. Israeli settlers cut down about 300 olive trees belonging to residents of the village of Salim outside the northern West Bank city of Nablus, residents of the village and international activists said Sunday. The settlers say they cut down the trees to prevent Palestinians from attacking them under cover of the olive groves.(AP Photo/Nasser Ishtayeh)

Now, the first thing I noticed, was that the AP had no pictures of the "settlers" (media code word for horned, blood sucking, land stealing, no right to exist Joooos), no pictures of the trees being cut down and we have no way of verifying if this tree belongs to the woman pictured. Oh, and the entire story was taken as gospel by the media, on the testimony of A SINGLE ARAB.

Luckily, Israel National News have broken this down way better than I can, so please read on :

It was widely reported Sunday, in the name of Arab sources in the Palestinian Authority-controlled areas, that Jewish settlers from the Shomron had chopped down 200 olive trees owned by Arabs.

However, the Yesha Council looked into the matter and said that though "we condemn all violence, including harming Palestinian property," it had found that the incident was apparently a provocation staged by extreme left-wing activists who "wish to sully their Jewish brothers, while at the same time extending their hand to terrorists."

The residents of Elon Moreh, in a statement, "wish to emphasize that we have no connection with this incident, which is based on the testimony of a single Arab."

A widely-published AP photo of an Arab woman weeping and embracing an allegedly chopped-down tree (similar photos were taken by Reuters, AFP, and others] shows that the trunk is intact, and that only the top branches are cut off - as if it had been purposely pruned. In fact, the Haifa-based Land of Israel Task Force says that this is exactly what happened.

"The left-wingers and Arabs pulled the same trick last year," Task Force head Aviad Visuly said, "and using the same method." Photos of the trees show that the branches were sawed off in a manner that is beneficial to the trees. "Why would vandals bother sawing off each individual branch? Wouldn't they just cut down the trunk?"

The branches begin growing back 2-3 months after they are cut, and grow to full size within two years. "In the meanwhile," Visuly said, "the orchard owners receive stipends from the Saudis, via the PA."

Visuly said that left-wing activists look for trees that have been pruned, and then blame the Jews for cutting them. "They have even admitted to the police that they do this," he said, "such as in the case of Ein Avus near Hawara [south of Shechem]. In that incident, they blamed the people of [nearby] Yitzhar, because Yitzhar was a convenient media target. Two Jews were arrested for five days and were then released with no charges whatsoever. Today, it's convenient for them to accuse the people of Elon Moreh. If the police had an investigator who was half-fair, he would throw the case out."

Two years ago, a similar story on Arutz-7 began as follows: "It led to anti-settler headlines, international embarrassment for the State of Israel, condemnations, and apologetics - and yet it all may have been one big bluff, or worse." At the time, international media reported as fact that Jews had destroyed the Arab trees, and President Katzav and Prime Minister Sharon issued statements implying that the Jews were responsible. Even the Yesha Council said that the tree-cutting had "defamed the entire sector of Jews living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza."

What went under-reported was that the police began to suspect that left-wing Israelis and Arabs were behind the incident. The police even asked Rabbi Arik Asherman of the Reform Movement and an Arab who filed charges against Jewish Yesha residents to submit to lie-detector tests - but it was reported at the time that the two had refused.

A Jewish National Fund expert brought in by the police concluded that no lasting damage was done to the trees, and that the tree-cutters did not "cut down" the trees, but rather "pruned" them.

To finish, I will quote one line from the Arutz Sheva report above ;
"Why would vandals bother sawing off each individual branch? Wouldn't they just cut down the trunk?"

Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 30, 2005 10:14 AM

Wd52,

Ah, yeah, unaha-closp, you're right take away the steady barrage of propaganda transmitted to Palestinians by the PA, other Islamic governments, historical revisionists and we're still left with some of the Christian bigots like Naim Ateek and you aren't we?

And some Jews who lay claim to all of Israel, some Jews who claim the Palestinians did not exist in Palestine. Some Palestinians who want to go live on Israeli soil, some Palestinians who say the Jews in Israel are not related to the Jews that lived there 2000 years ago.

Take away the propoganda and all of them lots will still want to have "their" land. Don't think defeating the jihad will make them want the land any less.

Us Christian bigots don't have much of a stake though, we'll much prefer to leave it to the Palestinian bigots and the Jew bigots to work it out.

Posted by: unaha-closp at November 30, 2005 5:02 PM

Hugh has done a good job of summarizing the relevant history. I would like to add that the first refugees from the Israeli War of Independence were JEWS, not Arabs. Arab irregular forces, apparently guided by the Husseini family [Haj Amin el-Husseini, Jamal and Abdel-Kader Husseini, etc.], started shooting at Jews within hours after the UN General Assembly recommended Partition of the country into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and an internationally governed "corpus separatum" comprising Jerusalem and its then Christian suburbs to the south, Bethlehem, Beit Jala, and Beit Sahur. The Arab League and Arabs in the country rejected the recommendation right away. Jews passing through Nablus in a car the night of Nov 29-30, 1947, were murdered. Before the end of December 1947, Jews were driven out of their homes in south Tel Aviv because of sniping from Jaffa, including from the Hassan Bek mosque in the Manshiyeh quarter. And Jews were driven out of the homes in the Shimon haTsadiq quarter of Jerusalem. That was in 12/1947. In January Jews were driven out of neighborhoods nearby, Nahalat Shimon and the Siebenbergen Houses. Although the Jews from south Tel Aviv could return home after the war, the Jews whose neighborhoods were taken by Arab forces [irregulars and the Transjordan Arab Legion] in Jerusalem could not return home. In addition to the neighborhoods mentioned, the Jews living in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City could not go home. Indeed, Jews could not approach the Temple Mount/Western Wall and other Jewish holy places under Jordanian control until 1967 after the 6-Day War, despite their right to do so being recognized in the Transjordan-Israel armistice accord.

What is remarkable, inter alia, is how the beginnings of the War of Independence resemble the beginnings of the Lebanese civil war and in some ways the war now ongoing within the country. In 1948 too there were mass murder bombings, although without suicide bombers. The Palestine Post newspaper [now the Jerusalem Post] was bombed, the Jewish Agency building was bombed, and so was the main shopping and entertainment district for Jews in the city, that is, Ben Yehudah street. At the latter location more than 50 people were slaughtered in, as I recall, March 1948. In any case, this was while British forces were still in the city [they left in mid-May].

Professor Karsh has documented from British sources how the Arab forces led by the Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini [head of the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine] forced Arabs to leave Haifa in 1948, despite appeals to stay from the official Jewish leadership, including the Haganah.

The mass murder bombings and ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the Arabs from the very beginning of the war in November 1947, are now forgotten or unknown or deliberately concealed by so-called "new historians" and many "revisionist" historians who are now fashionable. In recent years there have been pogroms by Muslims against Christian Arabs in areas of mixed habitation, such as Nazareth and Tur`an village. Israel has difficulty dealing with such outbreaks since Muslim Arabs have become almost a holy race whom it is sacreligious to criticize, let alone suppress in a jihadist pogrom. The problem is compounded since Israeli Christian Arab politicians, including members of Knesset, are mainly Communists and ex-Communists, and as such put all the blame on Israel without admitting that Muslims as such or Islam as such bears any blame for the pogroms. They would not even blame the Islamic movement [pro-Muslim Brotherhood] when they attacked Christians in Nazareth after church on Easter in [as I recall] 1999. This had to do with the Muslim demand build a mosque in front of the Church of Annunciation in Nazareth on state land, using the spurious claim that some Muslim saint was buried there in a previously unknown grave. I believe that Prof. Raphael Israeli has written a book on this and/or related incidents.

Posted by: Eliyahu at November 30, 2005 6:03 PM

unaha-closp:

Jerusalem, Safed, Hebron and Beersheva were, with the exception of a brief time following the Crusades, cities with a Jewish majority. The Jews have always maintained a presence in Judea, but for that exceptional period, and the immigrants who came from Eastern Europe in the late 19th century came in peace and settled lands that were scarcely inhabited. I don't know what claims to authority you have to speak on the topic, but I hope they are more substantial/less questionable than Edward Said's.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 30, 2005 7:24 PM

Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since 1854 [according to Karl Marx, no less!] or since 1860 [Gerardy Santine, a contemporary French traveler, and Tudor Parfitt, 20th century British historian], or 1870 [Prof. Yehoshu`a ben Arieh]. Safed had a Jewish majority in the 1500s and 1600s, Hebron had Jewish inhabitants since the Crusades, if not continuously since ancient times [this is not clear]. However, Jews have long been a minority there, and as you know local Arabs massacred Jews there [68 murdered] in 1929. Tiberias [I think you meant Tiberias instead of Beer Sheva] had a Jewish majority in the 18th century it seems. All four of these cities are considered the four Jewish holy cities, although non-Jews may only be aware that Jerusalem has that status. There were pogroms against Jews in all those places during the British mandate period. There are many travelers' and other accounts of the Jews in those four cities under Muslim rule, including the account of John Lloyd Stephens, an American who met the Jews of Hebron in about 1836.
See link below:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/07/american-among-jews-in-hebron-1836.html
Stephens' account continues on this site in eight instalments.

Posted by: Eliyahu at December 1, 2005 8:22 AM