| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
"The rockets and bombings and shootings of the past five years show that those who believed in the breakthrough of the Oslo Accords in 1993, and the similar agreement offered at the Camp David summit of 2000, who wanted justice for Palestine and peace for Israeli behind secure borders, now appear naive. History has moved on."
Yes -- and in the coming years, it is those who believe that Islam is a religion of peace and that a tiny minority of extremists is responsible for all the trouble who will appear naive. And those who today are marginalized and tarred as propagandists or worse for daring to speak of the roots of violence within the Islamic texts themselves will be seen as having been right all along.
From the Sydney Morning Herald, with thanks to JE:
THE Qassam rocket is a primitive weapon, a steel tube filled with explosives. It has no guidance system, only limited range and poor accuracy. Primitive it may be, but it is a highly effective propaganda tool, as dozens of these rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel in the past two months.The rocket attacks were the answer from the Palestinian side to Ariel Sharon's gamble to unilaterally begin a series of strategic withdrawals from the occupied Palestinian territories. The gamble has failed, and the impact of these Qassam rockets may be closer to home than you think.
It is time to connect the dots. The political death of Sharon is linked to the death of Yasser Arafat in 2004, which is linked to the liquifying of politics and economic growth in the Palestinian territories which, in turn, is linked to the rocket attacks on Israel from Lebanon, and the religious civil war in Iraq, and the nuclear bellicosity and anti-Semitism of Iran. It's all connected.
In southern Lebanon, now dominated by the Shiite militia Hezbollah, which is committed to holy war with Israel, the Iranian Government has been funnelling thousands of Katyusha rockets to Hezbollah. These rockets present a much higher order magnitude of threat than the home-made Qassams. According to the Middle East Defence Bulletin and Defence News, Hezbollah's arsenal has grown to an estimated 12,000 Katyushas, and the more recent models have a range of 75 kilometres, which brings the major port city of Haifa within the zone of potential mayhem.
On December 28, 10 Katyushas were fired from Lebanon into a residential neighbourhood of the northern Israeli town of Kiryat Shmona. Credit for the attack was claimed by the terrorist group led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which is leading the carnage in Iraq. If true, it would be the first direct attack on Israel by an arm of al-Qaeda. The attack completed a circle. The object of the rocket attacks from Gaza and southern Lebanon was to kill any peace process, maintain the status quo, thus continuing a long war of attrition against Israel that invigorates the jihadists around the Muslim world.
The rockets and bombings and shootings of the past five years show that those who believed in the breakthrough of the Oslo Accords in 1993, and the similar agreement offered at the Camp David summit of 2000, who wanted justice for Palestine and peace for Israeli behind secure borders, now appear naive. History has moved on.
Read it all.
Posted by Robert at January 9, 2006 8:17 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Israel sits on a muslim waqf.
What is there to discuss?
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
It's the muslm brotherhood.
What is there to discuss?
I's them or us.
Their choice not ours.
What is there to discuss?
It's unfortunate, but there's no denying it.
When there is an Arab Altalena, call me. Maybe it will mean something.
Posted by: epaminondas![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 9, 2006 8:53 AM
Well, it's time to trot out Bin Laden repleat with blatherings about keeping the ground shaking under the feet of the great satin and so on.
The Jews might be thinking about taking out Iran unilaterally or something; best to keep em under the boot. This usually does the trick.
Yah know kiddies; the secularists in Isreal had the temple mount under control when they took the place back in '67. They foolishly relinquished control to the islamists thinking they could buy peace. See the result?
Next time either blow the damn thing up and turn it into a casino/hotel or keep control of it!
Posted by: witness at January 9, 2006 9:21 AM
Postings which include mad talk about blowing up the Dome of the Rock, and sending "nukes to Mecca," and which include words that are unacceptable ("Muzzies") cannot be permitted. Hence the posting above has been removed.
Posted by: Hugh at January 9, 2006 10:27 AM
Hugh has pointed out that "mad talk about blowing up the Dome of the Rock, and sending "nukes to Mecca," cannot be permitted".
This is the 2nd such message I have seen, and obviiously I am delighted to see this. I wonder why there has been a "change of heart" to the language used here.....has something happened that I don't know about?....Pray tell all.
These issues are obviously very important and I have always said that debating should be related on the issues at hand and not "kill the messenger".
My personal opinion on firing rockets on innocents is completely unacceptable....these are the same people who want to fight in the elections, often I believe people don't really know what they need as opposed to what they want.
I find this heart breaking and I guess in the end there will be little choice but for Israel to talk to the (nearly) elected Hamas politicans for them to stop the firing (perhaps in exchange for more land).
Posted by: Naseem at January 9, 2006 10:58 AM
Naseem,
There has been no change. Such talk has always been against our policy here, with the exception of discussions about action against Mecca surrounding Congressman Tancredo's remarks about Mecca last year.
Comments are generally unmoderated, so this policy has not been and cannot be, given our current resources, uniformly enforced.
However, to see the continuing presence of any comment here, and the removal of any other, at any time, as some indication of our true sentiments, as some have, is as baseless as it is mean-spirited and agenda-driven.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at January 9, 2006 12:14 PM
"The rockets and bombings and shootings of the past five years show that those who believed in the breakthrough of the Oslo Accords in 1993, and the similar agreement offered at the Camp David summit of 2000, who wanted justice for Palestine and peace for Israeli behind secure borders, now appear naive. History has moved on.”
I would like someone to explain me to what extent the expansion of settlements in Cisjordania, the demolishing of houses and expelling of Jerusalem East Palestinian residents to build the wall help the peace, please.
Yes -- and in the coming years, it is those who believe that Islam is a religion of peace and that a tiny minority of extremists is responsible for all the trouble who will appear naive. And those who today are marginalized and tarred as propagandists or worse for daring to speak of the roots of violence within the Islamic texts themselves will be seen as having been right all along.”
Well, I’m glad yourself seem to recognize how little credibility you are granted. You won’t do anything good to stop terrorism, nor you won’t do anything to stop the “jihad” to the West. However, I would recommend you to watch some of your colaborators: I am afraid that Hugh’s comments about deportation, although they must have their place in a society with free speech, just as comments from nazis or white supremacists do, won’t be taken to well by the severely brainwashed occidental dhimmitude (I wish you would take him with you when you pass on Fox)
“Postings which include mad talk about blowing up the Dome of the Rock, and sending "nukes to Mecca," and which include words that are unacceptable ("Muzzies") cannot be permitted. Hence the posting above has been removed”
I entirely agree, Hugh. But frankly, do you think your comments are a lot better?
“In Bethlehem and Nazareth, Iraqi and other Arab-speaking Christians should move in, and Muslims be moved out. The retaking of Bethlehem, by the Israelis, and its being repopulted by Arabic-speaking but non-Arab Christians, or by Christians who are from Europe or Latin America, and willing to live there to keep the place safe for the world's Christians and out of Muslim hands and inevitable Muslim domination at the expense of a Christian presence, a Christian flavor, and ultimately of Chrsitian access -- should be a cause that will also, and most usefully, serve to separate out the Christians from the islamochristians (???)”
Posted by: Ispanan at January 9, 2006 1:11 PM
"Postings which include mad talk about blowing up the Dome of the Rock, and sending "nukes to Mecca," and which include words that are unacceptable ("Muzzies") cannot be permitted. Hence the posting above has been removed"
It's your website; do as you will. But if Iran uses nukes to wipe Isreal off the face of the earth as it claims it will do; then they may accomplish the remove of the dome of the rock anyway!
Perhaps their "mad talk" could be included ?
Posted by: witness at January 9, 2006 1:39 PM
I agree with witness.
and I hope that raising the prospect of how exactly to respond to say, a muslim dirty bomb, which obviously raises the prospect of a nuclear retalitory strike on mecca, will not be prevented.
at January 9, 2006 2:38 PM
The west doesn't believe in "total war" anymore.
However, Islam obviously does. It's only a matter of time before they force our hand.
at January 9, 2006 3:09 PM
Hello Mr. Spencer,
I feel lucky today, the great Mr. Spencer "spoke" to me for the 1st time...and I have been here for near enough 3 years.
I feel great, and thank you laying bare the comments policy for me. As you will know I have had a hard time here... a lone voice speaking when it has been possible about the benefits of Islam.
at January 9, 2006 4:58 PM
Thh SMH is one of Australia's idiotatrain publications featuring such star journalists as Bob Ellis, who wrote
Wolfowitz. Rice. Rumsfeld. Akerman. McGuinness. Pearson. Albrechtson. Henderson. Blair. The yattering adolescents on Fox News. Why if their judgements, their predictions and their logical reasoning are so bad do they keep their jobs?”—
The same Ellis who wrote that OBL was not responsible for 911. Another cafe intellectual Cream puff.
“What a greedy, graceless, bumptious capitalist pig he has proved to be.”—Bob Ellis on freed hostage Douglas Wood ( because he insulted the thugs who kinapped him.)
Why should we credit the SMH for waking up after being TEN years behind the times, when all the poster on this site have been awa ke for years!
What next? adulation for the BBC if it stops repeating the Big Lie of Palestinian freedom fighters and Israeli oppression?
at January 9, 2006 6:12 PM
"Postings which include mad talk about blowing up the Dome of the Rock, and sending "nukes to Mecca," and which include words that are unacceptable ("Muzzies") cannot be permitted. Hence the posting above has been removed."
I'm surprised to see such political correctness at Jihad Watch. I've been a lurker at Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch for some time and I was of the understanding that both of these sites held the view that Islamists were waging a Jihad (holy war) against non moslems, and had been doing so for some time.
My reading of your sites, and other sites, and many of the referred documents that have been linked, has lead me to the view that we are indeed well into a Jihad (about 1400 years). Additionally, I am of the view that Islam itself is at the core of the problem. I also thought your sites were of this view.
The three examples you give are puzzling to me.
If a war has been declared upon you (Jihad - by Islamists) and there are those who give your enemy aid, comfort and assistance (Moslems who correctly interperate their "religion"), Moslems should be dealt with, at the very least, as collaborators or, at worst, the enemy.
Isn't the term "Muzzies", at best, offensive only? Surely it is not racist. Who is offended by this term? Moslems? Dhimmis? The Left? It may be that not all Moslems are collaborators but, then again, neither were all "Japs" nor "Huns" in previous wars the west fought. But we really didn't care - it was war. Language remains a legitimate wepaon in any war and has been dominated, much to our detriment, by our liberal western press.
Apparently, your sites are of the "Pipes School" that think there is some good in this "religion". Or is this an attempt to pretend that Moslems are not the same as those who say they follow the tenets of Islam? I haven't noticed any positive postings by your organisations about Islam or its "holy" books. No doubt I can expect to see some in the near future.
Are we to separate Moslems, as the left separates Hamas into "charitable wing" and "Jihad wing"? Like, those who are members of a Death Cult, but are really nice people, and those who belong to a Death Cult, but are really bad people? I Don't recall reading about "good nazis" and "bad nazis"; just nazis.
The term "Death Cult" seems more offensive to me than "Muzzies". Will you ban this term too? I have also been told, by a Moslem, that my rendering of the word "Moslem" is also offensive. Will you allow it to be spelt this way in future? Maybe you should post a list of those words and statements that are offensive so that we can all avoid them.
I don't advocate blowing up the Dome of the Rock but only because of its location. I much prefer the Ayodyah approach to demolition. I would like to hear your views, and a discussion on your site, as to whether Moslem "holy sites" and mosques should be given the same respect we give to their eqivalents in other real religions, but I feel your ban would lead to a one sided discussion.
It may not be tactically correct to send "nukes to Mecca" at this time but in the end game all "holy" sites will need to be demolished if Islam is to be defeated (my opinion only). And "nukes" may well come into play if Iran carries out its stated aim of "nuking" Israel. Again, your ban, seems to me, to stifle any such debate on this looming problem.
Of course, it is your house and I will abide by your rules but I must say I am disappointed with your post.
Posted by: youcancallmemeyer at January 9, 2006 6:29 PM
It is said that during the Moslem Conquest of India Some 30,000 hindu/Buddhist temples were raised to the ground and we know the accounts of the invasion of the zaroastrians in Persia.
Perhaps as Meyer writes we might take a leaf out of their book and consider the possability of following islam's example.
BTW i have long wondered why Siddharta's country became alsot devoid of his followers. Yet Buddhism survives in Sri Lanka, Thailand etc. Countries that were never ravaged bt Islam.
Is it possible that the passivity of buddhism was unable to defend itself under muslim aggression and was wiped out, unlike Hinduism which is far less passive .
Does anyone know what happened to Buddhism in India?
at January 10, 2006 12:30 AM
Buddhism virtually dissapeared in India thanks to persecution of Buddhists by Islam.
I wonder how long it will take for the media to stop taking sides with the Jihadists.
Perhaps the media should start by hiring Chinese rather then Arab Cameramen.
Posted by: NicephorusPhocas at January 10, 2006 1:29 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)