It's not an impossible dream? uh, sorry, I think it is.

Posted by: hook at March 19, 2007 2:02 AM

I think UAL, in this context, is United Arab List, and Hadash is Communist, of one or more flavors. These are both arab members of the Knesset.

Posted by: del at March 19, 2007 2:10 AM

Australia For Sale:

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/03/19/australia-for-sale-saudis-target-nations-universities-with-27-billion-scholarship-fund/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 19, 2007 2:44 AM

Why am I not surprised?
I almost expect certain members of our Congress to say the same thing to our enemies as well.
The sad thing is that no one really cares enough to take a day or two off work, and take it to the street.

Posted by: Thunder Pig at March 19, 2007 2:58 AM

King David captures Jerusalem in 1000 B.C. Islam doesn't begin until 650 A.D. Hmmm lets see... 1,650 years passes until the Moon cult arrives on the seen and how long did it take before they slithered into land promised? By the Mandate of YHWH through the prophet Moses who's land & city is it? I think the muslims need to obey the prophet Moses.

Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, period.

Posted by: SoteriA at March 19, 2007 4:10 AM

...Palestinians to take cohesive, immediate action to "reclaim the city

Posted by: BODYGUARDS at March 19, 2007 4:22 AM

Just what type of 'cohesive action' is he implying?

I think he mean the ability of there brains and guts to stick to wall after they have blown themselves up.

Posted by: Holger Dansker at March 19, 2007 5:44 AM

And some people actually wonder why Muslims are not necessarily the most popular people in Israel.

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at March 19, 2007 6:03 AM

"MK Ibrahim Sarsour called for "Muslims and Arabs" to liberate Jerusalem."

Notice the made up persona of Palestinian is nowhere mentioned. Instead Mr. Sarsour says Muslims and Arabs to liberate Jerusalem.

The Jews are like the American Indian. When Lord Balfour announced that the exiled descendents could return to their ancestral homeland, the Arabian Moslems promised they would slaughter every last one of the remaining Indians.

The use of the term "Liberate" Jerusalem is the use of more deceit by Mr. Sarsour. Hooray for Islam. Moslems have been allowed in their precious mosque since Israel took over
(1967) allowing Jews to the wall (never allowed while the ever tolerant Jordanian Moslems were in charge). How do the Moslems repay Israel for its ecumenical freedom, who in full freedom with other religions attends the mosque, the Moslems being impaired or limited when they misbehave or riot or throw rocks or incite?

While they call for the liberation of Jerusalem, focus on the word liberation which is obviously misused in the rhetoric. "Liberation" is obviously not to obtain what you already have. What is there to liberate if you can freely pray in the mosque. The truth is "Liberation" is a euphemism for being Judenrein or Jew free. The use of the word Liberation is politically astute word to cover their true intention which is to just do what the koran says, slay the infidel! The fact that this marauding Moslem throws away the word Palestinian is educating about where he thinks Islam is in its development stage to take over the world. Remember the most despicable conduct and rhetoric of Moslems rears its ugly head when the Moslems are in the majority or when they think they are winning.

Posted by: David England at March 19, 2007 7:22 AM

You are right, Rougie, some of them have already claimed Al Andalus (Spain minus the Basque Country, probably) and the Balkans. They may wait, however, until they become a more sizable minority in the EU.

Posted by: highbg at March 19, 2007 7:24 AM

Palestinians will take cohesive action once they stop killing each other.
BTW, there's a good column in jpost.com by Barry Rubin entitled "Putting the impossible first". I liked his quip about why would Condi Rice say she stakes her reputation on making progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front when her efforts are doomed. Good point. He also wonders why anyone would think the internal situation in Iraq could be solved and that the radicals could become reconciled to Western interests.

Posted by: jewdog at March 19, 2007 8:21 AM

In a well-ordered society, such remarks would be treated as treason. There would be no question of his remaining in the Parliament. He would be arrested, tried quickly, and better expelled than imprisoned. Imprisonment costs too much. And if Israel behaved correctly, it would help the countries of Western Europe begin to act more appropriately as well. It is the simultaneous descent into suicidal inaction that harms. When Denmark took a firm stand on those rioting and death-threatening over the cartoons of Muhammad, that helped strengthen the forces of sanity in other countries.

Israel does not help itself by its failure to respond appropriately. Given the outrageous and disgusting way in which most of the European media, and some of the American press, covers or mis-covers Israel's attempts to defend itself, and its own legal, moral, and historic claims, which are persistently ignored as if history were just one big joke, to be taken or left as the commentator or reporter wished, one understands the inhibitions felt by Israel's government. But it is best to get things out in the open.

Israel cannot be saved, but will be destroyed, by what the Western world calls, with such malevolent pretense, the "two-state solution." It cannot be saved as long as it pretends that the Slow Jihadists can be negotiated with and given still further concessions, while it is only the Fast Jihadists who need be worried about. If Israel were to speak the truth about its enemies, it would be unpleasant. It would raise all kinds of outcries. But so what? Can it continue to not speak the truth, and in not speaking it, act on lies it pretends to believe -- or, what is worse, that some of its citizens, as ill-informed as citizens in the rest of the West, may believe?

It has a duty, or its citizens have a duty, to find out more about Islam and to understand what it is that explains the unceasing malevolence and meretriciousness, not of Hamas and Hezbollah alone, but of the most outwardly-sweet-reasonable of local Arabs (who are still called "Arabs" or "Israeli Arabs" because they haven't yet been renamed, as those other local Arabs were, as the "Palestinian people"), most of whom simply do not and never will, are incapable of, understanding that non-Arabs and non-Muslims have rights, even the rights to a tiny state.

This is not impossible for Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina, Ayaan Hirsi Ali to understand. It is almost impossible for any Believing Muslim to understand.

Islam is the explanation. Islam is the problem. Islam will not go away. It can be divided. It can be demoralized. It can have the unmerited sources of its power -- the oil money -- diminished. The disguised Jizyah of foreign aid from Infidels can end. The Western peoples, or those who are capable of thought, can learn about Islam. But it would help if Israel itself were not so badly governed, and its people often so badly informed about what, for them, is a matter of life and death -- not in a hundred years, but right now.

Posted by: Hugh at March 19, 2007 8:51 AM

Well put, Hugh.
Funny thing that those apostates you mentioned, and many more, are friendly to Jews and Israel. Once they leave the jihad, people become human beings.

Posted by: jewdog at March 19, 2007 9:07 AM

article mentions, "MK Ibrahim Sarsour (UAL-TA'AL) drew the ire of right-wing Knesset members on Sunday when he called for "Muslims and Arabs" to "liberate Jerusalem".

Soooo I see that only the right wing Israelis are considered about these comments.
I want to know what the left wingers and moderates have to say about this. Do they dismiss the comment outright? Do they think that the guy is joking? Do they think that if there are no right wingers that the Israeli Arabs would join with their Jewish brothers to dance the hooray with them? How many of these left wing moderate Israelis are there with these views if more than 50 % combined Israel is in big trouble.

Posted by: desidude at March 19, 2007 9:10 AM

Nothing like having Quislings in one's own govt.

In Canada we actually have members of Parliament from Quebec, drawing good pay and perks, who are dedicated to the breakup of Canada (an indep province) Go figure.

But here the Quislings are followers of evil islam.

a clear and present danger.

Posted by: dgene at March 19, 2007 9:10 AM

he called for "Muslims and Arabs" to "liberate Jerusalem

In a well-ordered society, such remarks would be treated as treason. There would be no question of his remaining in the Parliament. He would be arrested, tried quickly, and better expelled than imprisoned.

Can it be argued that such remarks are "peaceful?"
After all, he did not kill anyone; no specific threats were made; and no specific laws were broken.

If this was not the act of a "muslim who wants to live in peace," or a "peaceful muslim," then can some please define what exactly the terms "peace" and "peaceful" are supposed to mean in this context?

As I see it, these statements are an act of war in the same way that Ellison's taking the oath of office using the quaran was an act of war; just as the flying immam's actions were collectively an act of war; just as the refusal to ring up pork in a grocery store, or refusal to drive a client in a cab at the airport because they carry food prohibited by the quaran, are acts of war.

What exactly does it mean when we invoke the phrases "peaceful muslim" or "majority of muslims who want to live in peace?"

Posted by: witness at March 19, 2007 9:18 AM

The Muslims are just trying to reclaim land which once was theirs. The Quran even tells them to do so, as a religious duty....Posted by Rougie

Yes, and the Bible talks about Israel and Jerusalem over and over again. The Koran does not. Therefore, one is legitimate and the other is not. God is not double-minded. Allah is not God....he's a deception.

The koran is a dictated lie straight from the pit of hell.

Posted by: The Goobs at March 19, 2007 9:35 AM

And who did the Crusaders liberate Jerusalem from first? Oh yeah, the Muslims.

Posted by: Elric66 at March 19, 2007 9:54 AM

An Arab member of the Knesset freely and openly calling for war against his own country, without repercussion....

....what a striking example of racist, Zionist aparthied.

Posted by: Cornelius at March 19, 2007 10:04 AM

I've posted this before, from Nehemiah, which shows that the Arabs have historically wanted to claim some ties to Jerusalem. Nehemiah was permitted to return to Jerusalem from Persia by Artaxerxes around 445 BC and rebuilt the walls destroyed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar.

Nehemiah 2:19, 20---9 But when Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite official and Geshem the Arab heard about it, they mocked and ridiculed us. "What is this you are doing?" they asked. "Are you rebelling against the king?" 20 I answered them by saying, "The God of heaven will give us success. We his servants will start rebuilding, but as for you, you have no share in Jerusalem or any claim or historic right to it."

Nehemiah 4:7,8--7 But when Sanballat, Tobiah, the Arabs, the Ammonites and the men of Ashdod heard that the repairs to Jerusalem's walls had gone ahead and that the gaps were being closed, they were very angry. 8 They all plotted together to come and fight against Jerusalem and stir up trouble against it.

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at March 19, 2007 10:04 AM

the word "liberation" cannot go with anything that has islam. you only liberate when you get rid of islam.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 19, 2007 10:17 AM

Zechariah 12:3
And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

Sounds like todays news doesn't it?

Posted by: interestinconundrum at March 19, 2007 10:42 AM

Why do Muslims get to be in the Knesset? Anyone in Israel who has any sort of brain activity knows that Muslims will always try to replace Israel with palestine. Putting Muslims into office makes that goal much easier. The sensible thing would be to bar them from holding office. Looks like Israel is more concerned with worshipping PC than with national survival. The West can afford to play such games (for now), Israel cannot.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at March 19, 2007 10:48 AM

Okay, I pose my question again:

What exactly does it mean when we invoke the phrases "peaceful muslim" or "majority of muslims who want to live in peace?"

Mr. Spencer implies that this category of muslims does exist and comprises a majority of the muslims.

What I have missed is where the statistic "majority of muslims" comes from that are "peaceful" -- is it merely subjective?

Secondly, does Spencer believe that the definition of "peaceful muslim(s)" should or should not include those who engage in islam as MK Sarsour, Ellison, Flying immams, et al, clearly do -- yet do not actively engage in acts of overt violence?

I'm not "going after" Spencer, but I think we should be clear on what we mean when we talk about the "majority of muslims who want to live in peace."

If I'm not mistaken, MK Sarsour should be classified as "peaceful" under the current thinking of JW -- since no laws were broken; no violence has occurred; nor have clear threats been made.

Yet, all is NOT well!

Posted by: witness at March 19, 2007 11:10 AM

"Just as the Muslims once liberated Jerusalem from the Crusaders, so must we today believe that we can liberate Jerusalem. It is not an impossible dream," he said.

MK Muhammad Barakei (Hadash) accused Israel of trying to "empty Jerusalem of its Palestinian inhabitants." Calling Jerusalem a "national issue, not just a religious issue," he called on Palestinians to take cohesive, immediate action to "reclaim the city."

First he says that Muslims must do this deed, then he says it's not just a religious issue. Make up your mind.
There is a great outcy to get Arabs out of the Knesset on Israel Today.

For those on here who get upset when the real God or the Bible are mentioned, how else could all of this blindness be possible except by supernatural intervention?
Rational people all over the world acting in such an irrational manner does seem to lead one to wonder.
God does seem to have his own agenda, and we are destined to walk that path.
By the way, the whole story is laid out in the Bible so you can jump to the end and find out what happens and how. Even the Jews who pretend to be Jews.

Revelation 2:9
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Revelation 2:8-10 King james Version

Posted by: auntbea at March 19, 2007 11:22 AM

Jerusalem is the most prayed over place in the whole world.Jerusalam is for God and His chosen ones - and I am one of them,(even though I am 1/2
Arab.). Jesus makes all things to be under Him.
WE WILL ALL BOW TO HIM(the slain spotless,SINLESS Lamb)someday - and soon!!
HOLY IS THE LORD>

Posted by: eagerbeaver at March 19, 2007 11:54 AM

Sounds like an emulator of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Did you know that Hugo Chavez loves us and loves Dr. King's legacy? Thank heavens for Barbara Walters. I thought Hugo Chavez was a friend of Iran and its agenda and that we were 'devils' .
I guess that the Earth has moved for Hugo Chavez since his speech at the UN not 6 months ago.

Thank goodness all these third world tyrants are working for the liberation of their people and admire Dr. Martin Luther King. I won't worry about things now. :)

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 19, 2007 1:48 PM

Please do Muslims, liberate Jerusalem so the IDF will finally be released in a smack down to gain control over that city for the good of all.

Perhaps then the 3rd Temple will be rebuilt as that is long over do and there is room on the Mount to build it on it's original foundation.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 19, 2007 2:42 PM

The "Majority" my just be those Muslims who currently have no Weapons.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 19, 2007 2:45 PM

The "Majority" my just be those Muslims who currently have no Weapons.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 19, 2007 2:45 PM

Hugh, well-said! The martyred Rabbi Meyer Kahane was a true prophet.

Posted by: desertdawg29palms at March 19, 2007 4:08 PM

From Marisol's lead:

Treason.

That assumes prior loyalty, now broken. An unwarranted assumption, in the light of all the evidence.

The more you give them, the more they open their impudent mouths to demand more. Ghaleb Majadle, newly-appointed Minister of Science of Israel, is using his platform for giving anti-Zionist (as in "1947 Mistake", not just "1967 Mistake"!) diatribes.

Someday the world will lose its civility and do something about all this. The only question is how high the toll will have risen by that time.

Posted by: ZionistYoungster at March 19, 2007 4:50 PM

Witness, I think we pretty much all agree that the "peaceful" muslims would be the secular muslims, muslims that are muslim in name only and not truely following the muslim religion. Ones that are truely following the muslim religion are ALL engaged in jihad, not necessarily militarily, but legally, personally, etc. Anyone?

Posted by: fedupinamerica at March 19, 2007 5:02 PM

Witness, I think we pretty much all agree that the "peaceful" muslims would be the secular muslims, muslims that are muslim in name only and not truely following the muslim religion.

I think that you and I are in agreement on this point. Unfortunately, I am not sure that Spencer can agree with this position that is if I read his repeated message in his books correctly.

Ones that are truely following the muslim religion are ALL engaged in jihad, not necessarily militarily, but legally, personally, etc. Anyone?

Indeed, they are required to engage in jihad if they are following their religion. But perhaps active engagement in jihad is not "violent" per se as I have pointed out.

What I still need clarification on pertains to the limits of what is defined by "peace."

One need not detonate an explosive belt in order to engage in war. So when Spencer and Hugh refer to peaceful muslims -- who do they mean exactly and precisely what is and is not peaceful by their meaning?

I understand why they can't say all muslims are engaged in war and must say, in order to sound reasonable, that not all muslims are violent; clearly not all muslims engage in violence. But does that necessarily mean that non-violent muslims are therefore "peaceful?"

Are their goals unattainable through legal means which result in their goals of conquest and subjugation being realized nonetheless?

Is this then "peaceful islam" by JW's reckoning?

Posted by: witness at March 19, 2007 6:32 PM

"For muslims it is always about religion."
rougie

I say that allah is a hand puppet for muslims and especially Arab muslims and the koran is a handbook for getting what muslims want. Whatever muslims want is what allah wants and the koran will justify whatever action is required to get it. Whatever "tribe" is on the hate du jour for muslims is hated by allah also. See how easy it is? Go to any mental institution in the western world ( they don't exist anywhere else) and speak to an inmate. They have everything figured out and there is no doubt in their (demented) mind. My communications with muslims have been the same...they know the enemy and there will be no quarter..no retreat..allah wills it you see so there is no room for negotiation, except when they need a little breathing room. Seems we are always giving it to them..aren't we?

Posted by: pismopal at March 19, 2007 6:50 PM

THE CALLS TO WAR ARE BEING SHOUTED ACROSS THE MIDDLE EAST...............

PREPARE BE ARMED BE READY..............

The Texican.
Live Free and Die Free.
God Family America Freedom the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: The Texican at March 19, 2007 8:29 PM

I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 2:8-10 King james Version

This could also refer to church organisations who claim that THEY are Israel. That Israel is no longer relevant. It's called Replacement Theology.

Posted by: The Goobs at March 19, 2007 10:50 PM

With all due respect to auntbea -

When you say "God does seem to have his agenda and we are destined to walk that path" I am afraid that I ...have a problem. If we are 'destined to walk that path' (of what? world nuclear warfare?) then...why bother protesting about this or that attempt by the jihadists to take over? Why make any attempt to stop them (or to convert them), if it's all written in stone beforehand?

Myself, I refuse to use words like 'destiny' or 'fate' (which are the language of pagan Greek tragedy and the language of Islam) to describe the actions of the Biblical God and his dealings with humanity.

Years ago I read the "One Thousand and One Nights" - not any bowdlerised version for kids, but Burton's marvellous un-PC 19th century translation. It introduced me to the mindset of grassroots semi-pagan street Islam. Central to that mindset was a paralysing fatalism. The Will of Allah precluded all human choices for good or ill. Humans became slaves or puppets, mere pawns on a chessboard.

By contrast, the Biblical God is neither a slave-master nor a puppetteer. He is defined by the Exodus - the going forth from slavery into freedom. In 'the Battle of Lepanto' Chesterton has Mahomet say in dismay - ''it is he who says not KISMET, it is he who knows not fate/ it is Richard, it is Godfrey, it is Geoffrey at the gate!'. One could just as truly say - 'it is Moses, it is Joshua, it is David at the gate!'.

If we who are Christians love our Muslim enemies then we should dare to pray not for a world-destroying conflagration that would kill them in their sins by the millions - but for a collapse of the strongholds, an unstoppable avalanche of people out of spiritual slavery into freedom, out of darkness into light.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at March 20, 2007 12:29 AM

Everybody sing!-----"To dream the impossible dream"--

They should read Father Abraham's Bible--They aint getting it back!!

Posted by: guide inside at March 20, 2007 2:49 AM

God does seem to have his own agenda, and we are destined to walk that path.
quoted and posted by
dumbledoresarmy

God wrote the play, he did not give us our lines.

He gave us CHOICE and the will to fight for what we believe in to the better end.
Islam is without choice only to follow blindly.

You are right, perhaps destiny is the wrong word.
Would that I had Hugh's or Robert's mastery of the language.

I am not what you would label as any kind of religious anything. After avoiding involvement with my family's church for years, recent headlines simply caused me to read this book more closely and wonder about how it all seems to be coming to fruition.

BTW this part is in the Book at the end also and indeed it is our job to make it so.

"a collapse of the strongholds, an unstoppable avalanche of people out of spiritual slavery into freedom, out of darkness into light."

Goobs; That theory was one of the reasons I had trouble being part of a certain protestant creed as a child and young adult. It didn't ring true to my young mind from the very start. And when questioned, the teachers got defensive and angry always a good sign that the person is not really convinced of their argument.

Thank you for listening to my humble theories.
Aunt Bea

Posted by: auntbea at March 20, 2007 6:43 AM

SWome details: about the MK concerned what they think of this comment, here:

Ibrahim Sarsur

Date of Birth: 02/02/1959
Place of Birth: Kfar Kassem, Israel
Residence: Kfar Kassem
Family Status: Married
Number of Children: 1

B.A., English Literature and Linguistics, Bar Ilan University, 1981

Telephone: 02-6408415
Telephone 2: 02-6408416
Fax: 02-6408910
Email: isarsur@knesset.gov.il

English, Arabic

Posted by: carpediadem at March 20, 2007 7:34 AM

oops, i meant: Some details". Extra words crept in at the top there...

Posted by: carpediadem at March 20, 2007 7:42 AM

In fact, Jews have been the majority in Jerusalem since at least 1853, according to the French diplomat and historian, Cesar Famin [L'Histoire de la rivalite et du protectorat des Eglises chretiennes en Orient, Paris 1853].

Since 1840 or 1839, Jews have been had the plurality among the three ethno-religious groups in Jerusalem.
Muslims were a minority in Jerusalemn throughout the 19th century, since Jews and Christians together outnumbered them since 1800, and most likely long before that. Yet, Muslims [Arabs, Turks] had the upper hand in the city all along, intimidating the Jews and Christians. Regrettably, after the British took over in 1917, they maintained Muslim-Arab dominance, although the Jews were the majority. For instance, the British always appointed an Arab to be mayor of the city, on the pretext that it was "customary," although the Jews were the majority, as said above.

Posted by: Eliyahu at March 20, 2007 7:56 AM

Personally I think Mecca needs to be freed from Islamic tyranny that seize it against the will of the people in 650 A.D.

Liberation of Mecca is long over do!!!

FREE MECCA!!!
FREE MECCA!!!
FREE MECCA!!!

Posted by: SoteriA at March 20, 2007 8:53 AM

As usual, Eliyahu is right on. Jews have had a majority in Jerusalem since 1853 and Christians were the second largest group. Before 1853, Christians were the biggest groups and Jews the second largest. The is scant evidence that Muslims have ever had a majority of the population in Jerusalem.

Jerusalem is sacred to Jews and to Christians. It's status in Islam is a modern contrivance based on a fantasy. Muslims believe that Muhammed visited Jerusalem once IN A DREAM riding on the beast Burraq (it had a horse's body, wings, and a human woman's head). While dreaming he was in Jerusalem, he supposedly was taken on a tour of the heavens. Later, a caliph decided he had tied Burraq to the Western Wall.

Even educated Muslim apologists admit that Muhammed never physically went to Jerusalem:

"Many Muslims believe that Miraj of Muhammad (PBUH) was a physical journey. In contrary, Allah has said that Miraj was a vision or ru'ya (Surah Bani-Israil Ayat 60). Our dear Prophet experienced this extraordinary vision when contemporary people were relentlessly humiliating him...

The disbelievers thought that our rasul implied a physical journey and they ridiculed our prophet and demanded a book to be brought down from the heaven (Bani-Israil, Ayat 93). Our rasul replied: “but I am just a human being” (Ayat 93). This Ayat confirms that he does not possess power of a superman or is not provided with a 'burraq' to travel physically to heaven and bring a book! Unfortunately, these days we Muslims started to believe that the journey was physical."

from http://www.geocities.com/abusamad/

It's time we treat the Muslim claim to Jerusalem with the same disdain as their own scholars treat its foundation.

Posted by: Provoslavni at March 20, 2007 1:32 PM