| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
"The only solution ultimately is to re-launch the framework for a negotiated peace with a two-state solution at the heart of it..." -- from a recent statement by Tony Blair
He's well-spoken and incoherent, withal. He can't figure out Islam, and doesn't want to. It's too disturbing. Too many problems are posed, if he were to begin to understand it. He knows there's a problem with Islam -- outside Great Britain, and deep inside Great Britain. But he allows himself to believe that it is "manageable." He allows himself to be believe that there is a permanent "solution." And when it comes to Israel, he assumes that the "solution" is based on Israel withdrawing still further from land to which it has legal, historic, and moral title. The clear intent and the specific provisions of the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine, which mandate, like those others of the League, was to have its precise terms respected in toto by the successor organization, the United Nations.
Blair, like so many others, ignores completely these legal, historic, and moral claims. Child of the century, or rather child of the last few decades, he chooses to believe that the sudden appearance of the phrase "Palestinian people" after the Six-Day War, and the careful and relentless promotion of this soi-disant "Palestinian people," and the rewriting of history that took place to accompany it, and the absence of any context, have no significance. He ignores the context of what is wrongly called the "Arab world" but which has many, and once had even more, non-Arab and non-Muslim minorities. He also ignores the fact that the Jews managed on their own to return and to buy land. Not a single dunam of land was taken from Arabs before they made war in 1948, and very little after that. After all, nearly 90% of Israel, as the successor state to Mandatory Palestine, was state or waste land. It passed from the Ottoman government to the British Mandatory Authority to Israel -- a fact that so many ignore, or never bothered to find out.
Blair would have us believe that the texts of Islam do not mean what they say. Or perhaps he does not know what they say. What they say is this: no Infidel state can be permitted, whatever its size, on any land that was once a part of Dar al-Islam. Once conquered by Islam, territory belongs forever to Muslims. In a sense, you might well ask, what does it matter? Doesn't, in the Islamic view, the whole world belong ultimately to Islam? Isn't Islam everywhere to dominate, aren't Muslims everywhere, ultimately, to rule?
And you would be right. But there is a matter of priorities. The unprecedented has now occurred -- millions and now tens of millions of Muslims have been allowed to settle deep within Infidel lands, behind what Muslims themselves are taught to regard as, essentially, enemy lines. Naturally, still weak because far less numerous behind those enemy lines, Muslims in the Infidel lands must prevent those Infidels from examining too closely the texts and tenets of Islam, and figuring out what they mean. They must prevent those Infidels from looking too closely at the history of Islamic Jihad-conquest, and especially at the history of the subsequent subjugation of non-Muslims from Spain to East Asia, over 1350 years. They must prevent Infidels from finding out about Muslim attitudes toward many kinds of artistic expression (sculpture, paintings of living creatures, music) and toward the free and skeptical inquiry that makes science possible, and is everywhere encouraged in the advanced West, and discouraged in Islam. They must keep up a patter of phony sweetness-and-light, and misrepresent Islam as "respecting" Christianity and Judaism.
And Infidels don’t generally know that major figures from both those religions have been appropriated by Islam and turned into Muslims -- for we are all Muslims, right back to Abraham, in the Islamic view. They usually don’t bother to examine what the Islamic "Jesus" and the Islamic "Moses" are, in Islam. Muslim-Christian and Muslim-Jewish "dialogues" become occasions for special pleading and careful taqiyya-and-tu-quoque by Muslim spokesmen, delivered to self-selected groups of Infidels. Those Infidels, meanwhile, are in equal measures ignorant, naive, and self-preening: "We are willing to meet and listen and dialogue with our Muslim brothers -- unlike all those others, the benighted and the bigoted. We are morally superior, and we will demonstrate that moral superiority by taking every occasion to defend 'our Muslim brothers' from those who would divide us."
The beachhead is gained, and the Muslim troops fan out across the new land, ready to spread Islam. They spread it in the prisons among those looking for justification for their alienation from The System, Amerika, Kapitalism, and finding Islam as the perfect vehicle to justify their own past, and possibly future, criminal behavior, and in many cases, to dignify it, draping naked aggression in the cloak of a new faith. And since so many of the undisciplined long not merely for discipline, but for Total Discipline, Islam provides a ready-made Community of Believers, who will enforce, in every way, rules that cover every detail of life. Bush likes to prate about how everyone "wants freedom." It's nonsense. The spirit of wanting to march in serried ranks, of Belonging to the Group (Nuremberg! Hitlerjugend! Jawohl!), and of knowing what one is to do, for every occasion, at every step, is a strong one. There are many who cannot stand or do not know how to use "freedom" (which Bush himself hardly understands), and who long for Authority.
And that is what Islam provides: Authority, the Authority of Allah and the Example of Muhammad, whose life, whose words and deeds serve as a gloss on the will expressed by Allah in the Qur'an.
Blair, as a leading spokesman of the nattering classes (World Leader Division), goes on about a "manageable" problem to which there is a "solution." He wishes tiny, permanently beleaguered Israel, the physical refuge and embodiment of the most persecuted tribe in human history, to pay the price for his inability, and that of others, to dare to come to grips with the menace of Islam. He wants to prolong for a while longer the illusion that the problem arises from something we, the Infidels have done. In this case, the Infidels are those stubborn Israelis, who keep insisting on staying alive, who keep insisting on being able to have a minimum level of defensible borders, who keep insisting -- though not nearly as effectively as they should and could -- that yes, they have legal, historic, and moral rights to this land, that they are the victims of an Arab siege. The Israelis still do not call it, as they should, a Jihad, albeit a Local or Lesser Jihad. The monstrous rewriting of history that has gone on virtually unopposed since the Six-Day War needs itself to be rewritten, and the truth, or much of it, brought back to the consciousness of those in the West who have no idea of it – such as Blair, Rice, and other "two-state" solutionists.
Darura. "Darura" in Arabic means "necessity." The Arabs and Muslims understand this idea. "Necessity" can justify even violating explicit prohibitions. You may, if starving, eat pork, according to some. You may, if you need to protect the faith, lie to Infidels -- lie about Islam itself, lie about your own belief in Islam. There is no further surrender of territory by Israel that will bring about "peace" with the Arab Muslims. The Arabs, and the shock troops of Arab Islam in the Lesser Jihad against Israel, are divided. But they are not divided the way that Blair and Rice and others seem to think. They are not divided, that is, between those who are ready to permanently accept Israel's existence (and what's more, its right to permanent existence) and those who are not.
No. They are divided, rather, between those who are the Slow Jihadists and those who are the Fast Jihadists. The Slow Jihadists are what the media like to repeatedly assure us are the "moderates." How many times have you seen a reporter blandly begin by referring in his dispatch to "the moderate Mahmoud Abbas" or "the moderates of Fatah"? The Homeric epithets here are not singer-of-tales mnemonic devices, but rather part of mental bullying, a deliberate attempt to tell us what to make of facts, not to think for ourselves. Thinking for yourself is discouraged. You must repeat: Abbas “the moderate,” Fatah “the moderates.” You must further be told that what is called the “Two-State Solution” is indeed a “Solution.” If it weren’t, why would such impressive people as Condoleeza Rice or Tony Blair, or the “Quartet” (the Four Horsemen of Israel’s Apocalypse is more like it), call it a “Two-State Solution”?
Let’s get this straight. There is no difference in the ultimate goal of Fatah or of Hamas. Both want Israel as a Jewish state to disappear. They both know it is wrong, unjust, contra naturam, for Infidels, and especially the Jews, to possess land that was once ruled by Muslims. This is especially true of the Jews, who are so despised in the Islamic world for being weak, and are the special focus of hatred. (See Andrew Bostom’s forthcoming collection of documents and essays. It will undo Bernard Lewis’ attribution of Muslim antisemitism to the influence of European antisemitism, when Muslim antisemitism has independent and different sources, to be found in Qur’an, Hadith, and sira.)
The difference is in tactics. Fatah’s Mahmoud Abbas, loyal collaborator for decades with Yassir Arafat, behind the mild-mannered generally-accepted-accounting-principles suit-and-tie demeanor, is a firm supporter of terrorism in the past and in the present too, if the targets are the right ones. He believes that it will take patience. It will take a longer effort to soften Israel up, by continuing to weaken Israel economically and diplomatically, and militarily by pushing it back to the 1949 Armistice Lines which -- for god’s sake, just look at a map, and just imagine you are in the IDF and trying to plan to defend the population of Israel in this 1949 armistice lines, lines which the Arabs themselves always refused to make permanent.
Hamas, on the other hand, doesn’t want to wait. It wants not to chip away at Israel, not to slowly reduce it to conquerable proportions, but to subject it to military attack right now. It might consider a very temporary hudna or truce, but only so long as everyone is clear, including the Israelis, that it is temporary. And it is amusing to see how indignant Hamas becomes when Israel seems ill-disposed toward such an idea. Mahmoud Abbas himself can’t understand why, given how little is demanded of him by the outside world, and given how eager every Infidel government seems to be to ignore his real nature and the real goals of Fatah and of all the “Palestinians,” Hamas remains so stubbornly, shoot-yourself-in-the-foot pur et dur. But there it is.
In other words, the differences are only differences in means, not ends: in timing and in tactics. Why this should not be understood in the West, why assorted blairs and rices cannot or will not understood, is testimony to something. Fear of realizing the truth, for what it might mean. Embarrassment on the part of those who have spent their entire professional lives participating in, and pontificating about, “negotiations” and a “peace process” which they solemnly parse every few weeks -- all those dennis-rosses, and martin-indyks, and richard-hasses, and aaron-millers, who if they had actually noticed the gorilla of Islam in the room and grasped its significance, would have realized how foolish and time-wasting and false-hope-raising, and doomed-to-fail, were not merely this or that portentous airplaning back and forth, but the whole dismal thing. Do you think Bill Clinton, who entertained Yassir Arafat more than he did any other foreign “leader,” will ever grasp Islam, and therefore grasp what a waste it all was, how pointless, how stupid?
When I write “pointless” and “stupid,” I mean, of course, “pointless” and “stupid” for those who wish Israel well, wish Israel to survive. I do not mean….the others. Those others harbor hostility toward Israel that is often connected not merely to ignorance or laziness, but to a deeper much more unpleasant mental pathology. The business of antisemitism and vicious anti-Israel activities gives rise, nowadays, to a version of the chicken-and-egg problem. Just as we used to say as children “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” a new version might be “which came first, antisemitism or anti-Israel sentiment based on ignorance” -- for those two mutually reinforce, and prompt, one another.
If the goal is “peace” between Arabs and Israel, there is only one way to ensure that peace. It is not to give the Slow Jihadists what they want. It is not to call a “solution” that which will only further imperil Israel, and whet, not sate, Arab and Muslim appetites. It is to ensure that Israel is not only relieved of the constant pressuring by uncomprehending and cruel outsiders, who do not face the peril that Israel has and will always face, but is regarded by those who would destroy it as so obviously superior in military might that they will give up hope of destroying it and simply learn to live with their resentment, as they did, more or less, between 1948 and 1967.
Only this time Israel will have something like defensible borders, the borders which it was meant all along to include, and didn’t include in 1948 simply because Ben Gurion called a halt to the war. After all, the land that Israel currently possesses or controls is far less than the amount of land originally set aside for the Mandate for Palestine, a mandate whose express provisions show that it was created for the exclusive purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home. Israel, at the moment, save for Gaza, possesses Western Palestine, for the British decided that the provisions of the Mandate about the mandatory’s duty to “facilitate Jewish immigration” and “close Jewish settlement on the land” would not apply to the land east of the Jordan, which became, for realpolitik purposes, the Emirate of Transjordan. But that should be it. Israel gave, and gave, and gave. The giving has to stop.
And the largest and only sure keeper of the peace between Arabs and Israel is the IDF. Not the UN, not Javier Solana’s would-be EU ‘peacekeepers.” Only the IDF. The civilised world -- that is, the civilized themselves -- must support not “negotiations” and “peace processes” between Israel (or any Infidel state) and Muslim states or groups. For these will only lead to tangible concessions on the part of the Infidels, and no concessions, only temporary and false “truces,” on the part of those who, as Majid Khadduri and many others have pointed out, make “treaties” with Infidels only on the model of Al-Hudaibiyya. Treaties, that is, in the Muslim view are not subject to the Western idea, so natural that we assume it always existed, of Pacta sunt servanda. No, in Islam treaties are not to be obeyed. That is the rule: treaties, by the Muslim side, are not to be obeyed, but rather, breached at the first opportunity.
Darura.
Memorize that word. Understand its significance. And if you are a would-be diplomat going off to the Middle East, don’t you dare leave home without it.
Posted by Hugh at June 8, 2007 12:42 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Arabia here we come:
* Like Peanut Khadr and Willie Clitman before him, this eager social raiser and his egregious wife Cherie Blair, a ‘human rights lawyer’- (in this case a rather euphemistic term for a petro-dollar sucking scamster ) make no beef about their intentions.
Once out of politics, the real fun $$$$$ begins.
Tony BLair and his wife Cherie will get really busy:
* Speaking tours to the ME, just like Clitman and Khadr. 'Cosultancy and advisory' fees, many millions of them, truckloads full. Why bother with Islam?
The only worry now is:
Is Tony BLair, your lowly English labor prop, worth as much as Jimmah and Willie? Or will he have to eat couscous with the Bedouins?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 8, 2007 1:01 PM
Israeli Columnist Tom Segev asks:
"What If?"
"FORTY years ago today, on the morning of June 5, 1967, Jordan launched an artillery attack on the Israeli part of Jerusalem. In reaction Israel conquered the Arab sections of the city as well as the West Bank.
"What if Israel hadn’t taken East Jerusalem and the West Bank in the Six-Day War? Would the Palestinian situation have found some solution and Israel be living at least in relative peace with its neighbors?
"Leading Israeli policy planners had determined six months before the Six-Day War that capturing the West Bank would be bad for the country...according to these policy planners, taking over the West Bank would weaken the relative strength of Israel’s Jewish majority, encourage Palestinian nationalism and ultimately lead to violent resistance.
"Hussein was also endeavoring to unify the West Bank with the East Bank and was encouraging West Bank Palestinians to migrate to the east. Over the preceding 15 years, the number of Palestinians who had left the West Bank for the east had reached 200,000. Moreover, approximately 100,000 Palestinians had left Jordan altogether. Hussein’s effort to integrate Palestinians was “a positive phenomenon from Israel’s point of view,” concluded the final position paper that emerged from that winter’s discussions. Hussein was acting to eradicate the Palestinian question, and this was an excellent reason not to take the West Bank away from him.
"But when Jordan attacked the Israeli part of Jerusalem on the first day of the conflict, all reason was forgotten. Jordan’s attack obviously called for some kind of retaliation — but striking back at the Jordanian Army did not require the conquest of the West Bank or East Jerusalem.
Read the rest here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/opinion/05segev.html
at June 8, 2007 1:42 PM
Hugh says of Blair:
"He's well-spoken and incoherent, withal. He can't figure out Islam, and doesn't want to. It's too disturbing. Too many problems are posed, if he were to begin to understand it. He knows there's a problem with Islam -- outside Great Britain, and deep inside Great Britain."
Confirmation of Blair's ignorance, and of Hugh's opinion, can be found in part of the documentary "What the West needs to know about Islam". There is an interview with Blair. The interviewer (Pakistani? Indian?) asks Blair, point- blank, about what books he has ever read about Islam. Reply, as best I can recall, was along the lines of the "Oh. A great deal of books and I talk to many people". Interviewer presses on and asks Blair again "What books were they?" Answer: "I have to leave now for a meeting?".
I apologize if I misquote, but I am recalling from memory what I saw weeks ago. If someone has the exact colloquy. Please do post.
But the message I took from that short interview was clear. Blair, and Bush, are equally guilty of first degree ignorance.
at June 8, 2007 1:53 PM
But for the Serbs Blair had a totally different kind of "the only solution" in 1999: Bomb, Murder, Destroy. He pushed for war against Serbia even harder than Clinton did. The sociopath's sociopathic female half, Cherie Blair was believed to be the driving force behind this uncompromizing, bloodthirsty drive. Just as the infamous Vanessa Redgrave and equally infamous Anna Lindh, she never met a terrorist thug, be it Palestinian, Iranian, Lebanese, Albanian or Chechen she did not fancy. A severe degree of degeneration among the ruling classes has occured during the past 200 years or so in England and much of the Europe which turned into EUrabia. Nearly 200 years ago, in 1830's, the ruling classes of England and France had enough human decency in them to join Russia and pressure the ailing Turkish Ottoman Empire into easing the oppression of the Christian population of the Balkans, with some results. The British consul J.E. Blunt wrote in 1860 from Macedonia: "Christian churches and monasteries, towns and inhabitants are not now massacred, pillaged and burned by Albanian hordes as used to be done 10 years ago". Well, they are now. Nearly 200 magnificent churches and monasteries have now been looted, burned and destroyed in Kosovo "by Albanian hordes", with huge, heavily armed hordes US and NATO "peacekeepers" just standing there watching. 150 were destroyed just during the 1st year of liberation, more than 100 on those on UN's World Heritage Site list, while, ironically officially under UN government, barbarity far worse than that of the Taliban in destroying the 2 Buddha statues. Those churches survived 500 years of brutal Islamic Turkish rule and 4 years of brutal Nazi occupation, but did not survive even the 1st year of NATO's "liberation". We must at least wrestle our country away from the sociopaths, clearing them from the pockets of their worst infestation: the media, the academia, the State Dept. and the CIA. Vote for Rudy and pray it is not too late. JoinRudy2008.com.
Ruslan Tokhchukov,
Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at June 8, 2007 2:31 PM
"He can't figure out Islam, and doesn't want to."
...well, that covers most of our current politicians!!..
at June 8, 2007 2:53 PM
Politicians are too often not able to contend with war or reality.
Posted by: Foehammer at June 8, 2007 2:58 PM
our leaders are simply lesser men, they have neglected their responsibilities and are doing everything possible to ruin our civilization....whether it be ignorance or deliberate means, the wests leaders are following the recipe to destroy the western civilization. We let them do it, we have enough supporters of such appeasing policies that we can't purge these lesser men from their roles of leadership. In the end, we will win, but in the meantime, we will get what we deserve. The sooner the better, I'm tired of all the foreplay.
Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at June 8, 2007 3:36 PM
Vote for Rudy and pray it is not too late. JoinRudy2008.com.
Ruslan Tokhchukov,
Posted by: Enragedsince1999
Sorry, his positions on many things mark him out from the list of good picks. He is involved in helping the Nafta Superhighway get built between Mexico into Canada.
We just won a battle over C.I.R. yesterday, but with ideas to destroy the U.S.A. as a nation and build a "North American Union" in it's place, we are better served with leaders that have this great nation's interests first, not a agenda of C.F.R., or U.N. members calling out what serves us best.
He has some good points, but some real bad ones as well.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at June 8, 2007 5:08 PM
Leave Iraq Now,
yeah, Blair is a lost cause. That quote occurs in Part 3 of 6 ("Expansion"), about 38:43 minutes into the video. I believe the interviewer who demands to know what Blair knows about Islam -- "What do you know about Islam?" [Blair ad-lib follows, quite funny in a way -- "Well,, I don't pretend to be an expert, but I do read..") "What do you read?" is asked by Abdullah al-Araby (I believe it's a pen name -- otherwise the jihadis would get him -- al-Araby is a humanist and writes articles in "The Free Thinker" etc.) And Blair says, "I read the message of the Koran --- in translation -- and I read about Islam, and I enjoy doing that.." This is not direct quotation either, just the gist.
Posted by: J.S. at June 8, 2007 6:49 PM
Tom Segev gives new meanings to the term schmo.
Jonathan Kay asked a similar question: "The Tantalizing Question: What If?" (in the National Post, June 8, 2007). Kay writes: "It is tantalizing to think what might have happened had Hussein kept out of the conflict. By war's end, Israel would have still controlled Sinai and Gaza -- and possibly Golan, depending on Syria's actions. But none of those territories had anywhere near the symbolic, historical and religious freight of Jerusalem, Islam's third holiest city --- not to mention Bethlehem, Nablus, Hebron and Jericho. Jihadis wouldn't be able to draw on al-Aqsa imagery in their recruitment. And two million fewer Arabs would be under Israeli occupation...The manner in which Jordan foolishly fumbled away the Levant's great religious jewel symbolizes the self-destructive instinct that plagued the Arab world then -- and continues to plague it now. Nasser and Hussein likely both knew they were committing military suicide by attacking Israel. But they did so anyway because the Arab world's political culture -- suffused as it is with overweening pride, militarism and anti-Semitic hostility -- left them no other choice.." [emphasis added, js]
Posted by: J.S. at June 8, 2007 7:34 PM
Darura. "Darura" in Arabic means "necessity." The Arabs and Muslims understand this idea. "Necessity" can justify even violating explicit prohibitions. You may, if starving, eat pork, according to some. You may, if you need to protect the faith, lie to Infidels -- lie about Islam itself, lie about your own belief in Islam.
I like the image of Moslems eating Pork, the other White Meat.
I also like to see Moslems lie about Islam. Bullsheet, the other Reality.
And most of all I like seeing a Moslem lie about his belief in Islam --- as in which part of the Koran and the Sunnah do you personally approve Mr. Moslem. Moslem liars, the actualy real Reality.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at June 8, 2007 7:34 PM
Darura. "Darura" in Arabic means "necessity." The Arabs and Muslims understand this idea. "Necessity" can justify even violating explicit prohibitions. You may, if starving, eat pork, according to some. You may, if you need to protect the faith, lie to Infidels -- lie about Islam itself, lie about your own belief in Islam.
I like the image of Moslems eating Pork, the Other White Meat.
I also like to see Moslems lie about Islam. Dar al Islam, the Other Reality.
And most of all I like seeing a Moslem lie about his belief in Islam --- as in which part of the Koran and the Sunnah do you personally approve Mr. Moslem. Moslem liars, the Actualy Real Reality.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at June 8, 2007 7:46 PM
Darura. "Darura" in Arabic means "necessity." The Arabs and Muslims understand this idea. "Necessity" can justify even violating explicit prohibitions. You may, if starving, eat pork, according to some. You may, if you need to protect the faith, lie to Infidels -- lie about Islam itself, lie about your own belief in Islam.
I like the image of Moslems eating Pork, the Other White Meat.
I also like to see Moslems lie about Islam. Dar al Islam, the Other Reality.
And most of all I like seeing a Moslem lie about his belief in Islam --- as in which part of the Koran and the Sunnah do you personally approve Mr. Moslem. Moslem liars, the Actualy Real Reality.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at June 8, 2007 7:46 PM
Yes, the lying. I recall interviews with some (pathological liars??) -- their speech would be peppered with pauses and hesitations and "eh", "er", "uhhh" -- or they would say: "I am telling you!!..." (for the emphasis) "I tell you this!!" or..."Trust me!!"
Posted by: J.S. at June 8, 2007 7:57 PM
Caroline Glick has a good article in today's Jerusalem Post in which she alleges that the reason the US is unwilling to take military action against Iranian nukes is because we need Iranian help in extricating ourselves from Iraq. As if that wasn't bad enough, she also points out that we are supporting the construction of nuclear reactors by other Islamic states in the region who feel threatened by Iran, thereby helping fuel a regional nuclear arms race. (Nothing like a bunch of nuke-armed jihadis to make your day!)
This whole mess is a result of our underestimating the fundamentally belligerent nature of Islam and overestimating our capacity to make reliable alliances with Muslims. We are being skewered by our naivete and excessive optimism. Condi Rice needs to read some books by Robert Spencer.
at June 8, 2007 8:00 PM
The 7% solution is far preferable to the 2-State solution, it would be the only way to stomach "the dream dreamt by an idiot, signifying nothing." (2 idiots? 3 idiots? how many idiots have dreamt that dream and will keep on dreaming it?)
Necessity to do everything necessary to achieve the goal of Islamic supremacy. Anything goes, when it's Islam that's concerned.
The dreaming idiots don't get that. One has a brain problem--calcification, alcohol and 7% solution damage, whatever (I am not a psychiatrist). The other has a supposedly high IQ, but is under the thumb of idiot No. 1 and incapable of either thinking for herself, defying a clearly perceived idiocy, or not wanting to give up a cushy position that can lead the higher status as an elderly stateswoman. Then there is dear Tony B. well, Hugh has said everything that can be said about that sad "Prime" Minister of what was once a great empire, now overrun by the barbarians that it could have and should have held in check, kept out of the homeland. Oh, well . . . what's a mere mortal to do?
(A brief exposition of the 7% solution can be found as a footnote to this Hugh Fitzgerald post at http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/06/fitzgerald-on-two-state-solution-note-7.html
Posted by: unicorns62000 at June 8, 2007 8:35 PM
The 7% solution is far preferable to the 2-State solution, it would be the only way to stomach "the dream dreamt by an idiot, signifying nothing." (2 idiots? 3 idiots? how many idiots have dreamt that dream and will keep on dreaming it?)
Necessity to do everything necessary to achieve the goal of Islamic supremacy. Anything goes, when it's Islam that's concerned.
The dreaming idiots don't get that. One has a brain problem--calcification, alcohol and 7% solution damage, whatever (I am not a psychiatrist). The other has a supposedly high IQ, but is under the thumb of idiot No. 1 and incapable of either thinking for herself, defying a clearly perceived idiocy, or not wanting to give up a cushy position that can lead the higher status as an elderly stateswoman. Then there is dear Tony B. well, Hugh has said everything that can be said about that sad "Prime" Minister of what was once a great empire, now overrun by the barbarians that it could have and should have held in check, kept out of the homeland. Oh, well . . . what's a mere mortal to do?
(A brief exposition of the 7% solution can be found as a footnote to this Hugh Fitzgerald post at http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/06/fitzgerald-on-two-state-solution-note-7.html )
Posted by: unicorns62000 at June 8, 2007 8:36 PM
We definitely need a two state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
It could be the only thing that will shock Western leaders out of the fantasy that Muslim terrorism is all in response to the situation in Palestine.
When the terrorism continues even after the so-called two state solution becomes reality, maybe they'll realize that Muslim terroriam is a far bigger issue than what they thought it was.
Posted by: rational at June 8, 2007 8:55 PM
We already have a Palestinian state in Gaza, recognized or not. It's the place where internet cafes are blown up and a civil war rages between Fatah and Hamas (Fatah lately has been shooting men with beards, figuring they're Hamas, but several non-Hamas people have been shot). The Israelis already pulled out of Gaza, so now it's a miasma of jihadist violence, fueled by smuggled arms from Egypt. Rocket attacks against Israel have quadrupled since the pullout.
Give 'em what they want, and they'll give you what they want.
at June 8, 2007 9:15 PM
If one considers what is conferred upon recognized "states" -- hmmm...definitely, "no." Who wishes to see a terrorist state, complete with all the perks -- air ports, military, etc. One should hope that even the duly elected idiots (in the U.S.,etc) are not that stupid...(but, I guess, it's not intelligence that's lacking in certain people, such as Baker).
Posted by: J.S. at June 8, 2007 9:26 PM
The 'Palestinians' have a lot more than a 'national identity', crisis driving them. They have the hard taskmaster, Allah cracking the whip.
Most people think Allah wrote the Quran, and then retired. He did take a short rest, dictating to Monammad was hard work, even for Allah. But once a writer, alway's a writer; Allah just could not put 'down the Pen of Destiny, he just kept writing.
One of the thing's he wrote is the 'Palestinian National Charter'. A work of art. If you read it, you can see that Allah's, grammar has improved, but it's basically the same old message. 'Fight the Jew's', and dont give up'.
I guess that if all the book's Allah wrote were placed end to end, they would would circle the world. Some of Allah's recent writing's are:
'The '1001 witty saying's', of Pol Pot'.
Allah capture's Pol Pot at his best.
'Maitreya, is not the last Prophet'.
'Allah explain's why Maitreya is a fraud,
and not Mahdi.
'Touring Pakistan on one dollar a day'.
Allah show's you where the best, cheap, resturant's are.
'Hitler was not such a bad guy'.
Allah make's the case, that if Hitler had not liked dog's, he would have made a good muslim.
'The sex life of the Boll Weavil'.
Border's on the erotic, Allah's first attempt at
bioporn.
'The idiot's manual on pooper scooping'.
A long awaited sequal to Allah's best seller, 'Hey, whose gunna clean up that mess???'
So you can see, Allah is a prolific writer. His secular work's are not yet available in store's.
He has a few war's to fight, some problem's with his printer, and some uppity infidel's down the street. But Allah willing, you will see them soon...
at June 9, 2007 1:23 AM
"I apologize if I misquote, but I am recalling from memory what I saw weeks ago. If someone has the exact colloquy. Please do post."
-by Leave Iraq Now-
I think these are the words of Tony Blair in the interview:
Blair: “I do not pretend in any shape or form to be an expert, but I do read….”
Interviewer: “What do you read, what interests you?”
Blair: “I read the message of the Koran, as far it can be translated. And I read about Islam. And I enjoy doing that. And I have learned things about the Koran that I never knew before, and I think a lot of Christians would be interested. It’s one of the reasons I say to you, It would be good if we had some more dialogue and faith…and the reason I have to leave you now, is that I am going to meet some religious leaders, both [sic] Muslim and Christian and Jewish upstairs in order to discuss with them how we can bring the faiths closer together.”
One can only come to the conclusion that Blair has not really studied Islam. So he is a downright liar. Note also how he repeats all the apologetic nonsense about interfaith dialogue, the 'hard to be translated Koran' and the lack of knowledge about Islam by Christians.
Sadly, when it comes to our leader, Blair is the rule not the exception
at June 9, 2007 7:22 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)