Fatah will make an offer the Infidels can't refuse. But if they do refuse, Fatah will take matters, er...guns...into their own hands.

Whose guns? What guns?

You know, the ones we here in the USA shipped over to them.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at October 3, 2007 11:20 AM

". . . senior Fatah officials hinted at a possible wave of violence if the conference . . . did not meet the Palestinians' demands."

Then why have a conference? Why pretend to negotiate? Just skip ahead to the violence part; that's what they want anyway.

Posted by: Pelayo at October 3, 2007 11:27 AM

The House resolution praising Ramadan and "condemming bigotry" passed without a single nay vote. No Democrats or Republicans had the guts to vote against this dhimmitude in the name of the American people.

H RES 635
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll928.xml

"Recognizing the commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and commending Muslims in the United States and throughout the world for their faith.

Whereas since the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, threats and incidents of violence have been directed at law-abiding, patriotic Americans of African, Arab, and South Asian descent, particularly members of the Islamic faith;

Whereas, on September 14, 2001, the House of Representatives passed a concurrent resolution condemning bigotry and violence against Arab-Americans, American Muslims, and Americans from South Asia in the wake of the terrorist attacks;

Whereas it is estimated that there are approximately 1,500,000,000 Muslims worldwide;

Whereas Ramadan is the holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal for Muslims worldwide, and is the 9th month of the Muslim calendar year; and

Whereas the observance of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan commences at dusk on September 13, 2007, and continues for one lunar month: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That--

(1) during this time of conflict, in order to demonstrate solidarity with and support for members of the community of Islam in the United States and throughout the world, the House of Representatives recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world; and

(2) in observance of and out of respect for the commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, the House of Representatives acknowledges the onset of Ramadan and expresses its deepest respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this significant occasion."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-635

Posted by: Charles Bogle at October 3, 2007 11:32 AM

They live for violence towards the Jewish State, they search for any excuse they can to commit violence towards the Jewish State, their lock step resolve is to drive the Jews into the sea --PERIOD.

Most of the fatah is probably infused with the 36 articles of the Hamas Charter by now.

Posted by: Mackie at October 3, 2007 11:33 AM

Outlaw Islam.

Posted by: Foehammer at October 3, 2007 11:46 AM

"". . . senior Fatah officials hinted at a possible wave of violence if the conference . . . did not meet the Palestinians' demands."

Then why have a conference? Why pretend to negotiate? Just skip ahead to the violence part; that's what they want anyway.

Posted by: Pelayo"

....agreed!.....Muslims do not honor agreements anyway.....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at October 3, 2007 12:16 PM

""Moderate" Fatah: Give us what we want or face a new intifada"

...I was not aware the old one ever went away....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at October 3, 2007 12:18 PM

A failure in the upcoming US-sponsored Middle East peace conference would have more dangerous repercussions than the botched Camp David summit in 2000, Fatah officials warned on Tuesday.
.....................................................

"Botched"? Yes, every peace conference, every summit, every plan and "road map" will always and forever be "botched", if by that you mean that it will be unsuccessful.

The idea that one of the parties is simply not acting in good faith is not being considered.

Posted by: gravenimage at October 3, 2007 12:28 PM

Olmert is the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time. At this point, someone in the Israeli government, or outside the government, should be demanding that the Arabs -- the "Palestinian" Arabs -- discuss the deepest matter, the essential matter, the matter without which every bit of every negotiation between Israel and any of the Arabs -- the Egyptian Arabs, the Jordanian Arabs, the Syrian Arabs, the Iraqi Arabs, the Saudi Arabs, and all the other Muslim Arabs (and also some islamochristian Arabs doing their Muslim masters' bidding, prompted by fear, internalized dhimmitude, and the identification, because of that sense of Uruba, or "Arabness," with Islam), and of course the "Palestinian" Arabs (also known, since round about 1968, as the "Palestiniain people" who like Topsy just grew), is merely a farce, and prelude to a tragedy for Israel.

What is that matter? It is the matter of Islam. It is the matter of whether or not Muslim Arabs, and other Muslims, can permanently accept the existence of a non-Muslim polity on land that everything in Islam teaches Believers must always belong to Islam, and that it is an affront for lands once were part of Dar al-Islam, however long or short that period, ever to be re-possessed by non-Muslims.

And at the same time, the question of the value of all treaties or agreements made, between Infidel states -- not just Israel, of course, but in this instance Israel -- and Muslims must be discussed openly. What should Israel, what should the American government, what should any Infidels do, except to discuss, openly, the Treaty of Al-Hudabiyya, and what not only every true Western scholar of Islam (let's leave out the espositos, shall we, at this point?), but every Muslim or Arab scholar of Islam knows, which is that that agreement between Muhammad and the Meccans in 628 A.D., which was to last for ten years. That ten-year period is important, for it explains why, throughout Muslim history, "treaties" with Infidels -- that is hudnas or "truce" treaties, never real "peace" treaties as we in the West understand that term -- ordinarily last for ten years, and only Muslim weakness justifies ever renewing their term/ Furthermore, Muhamamd, the Model of Conduct, uswa hasana, the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil, having concluded the treaty, was indeed allowed to enter Mecca with his followers to perform the Lesser Pilgrimate or ijra, and then, within eighteen months, when he felt that his side had grown stronger, broke the treaty on a pretext ("war is deception") and attacked the hapless, trusting Meccans. The behavior of the Arab states, in all of their agreeements with Israel, has shown a consistent pattern of violations, little and big, accompanied by the sly allusions, for Muslims only, to the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, or even express reference to it, as Arafat made in a speech before a Muslim-only audience in Johannesburg (surreptitiously taped, however), just after signing some hollow agreement, made much of by the Americans, with Israel.

Anyone who doubts the significance of the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya can start with Majid Khadduri's "Law of War and Peace in Islam" and with the works of Joseph Schacht and Snouck Hurgronje and dozens of other great scholars, each more valuable, and each more learned, than a hundred of today's MESA-Nostrans, spreading their extremely well-paid, meretricious nonsense, from those chairs or "Centers" endowed by you-know-who.

Olmert, Livni and the rest give no signs of having the necessary undertanding, intelligence, and resolve. As for Rice et al., the entire American effort has been to avoid confronting the doctrines of Islam, to avoid discussing Islam and its texts and tenets and attitudes, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Western Europe, and right here at home. Timidity, stupidity, cupidity, rigidity -- and the consequent wrong moves, the consequent squandering of men, money and materiel in Tarbaby Iraq, where the outcome desired is both unattainable, and exactly the wrong outcome if the goal is, as it should be, one that will divide and demoralize and weaken the Camp of Islam.

The Annapolis meeting is likely to be a disaster for Israel. But if it is a disaster for Israel, it will also be a disaster for all other Infidels. For it will prolong the misunderstanding of Islam. It will prolong the belief that indeed what this or that demand of Muslims represents is something local, discreet, limited in time and space. It never is. Every local demand, against Israel or against India or against Thailand or against this or that group of non-Muslims forced to abase themselves still further (see Malaysia, see Indoenisa) or fear for their lives still more, are all prompted by the same texts, the same tenets of Islam.

And any agreement, or even the meeting itself, can only serve to re-legitimize the very idea of this "Palestinian people" that is a construct madde for deliberate reasons, to obscure the nature of the long and endless war of Muslims and especialy of Muslim Arabs -- rightly understood, a Lesser Jihad -- against Israel.

Every time some Israeli leader meets, forced or un-forced to do so, with the "Palestinians," and shows that he believes, or pretends to believe, that the doctrines of Islam are irrelevant, or that it would be unseemly to raise them, to discuss them, he harms Israel, and he harms the rest of the Infidels everywhere, without realizing it. And this happens merely by engaging in such farcical meetings -- farcical because the essential questions, based on the texts and tenets of Islam, and the possibility of any treatay signed by Muslims with non-Muslims being observed by the Muslim side after it feels strong enough to break its solemn commitments -- the Muslim side is legitimized, and strengthened.

This is not understood in Jerusalem. This is not understood in Washington. This is not understood in any of the capitals of the West. But it must be, because these meetings, these negotiations, at Annapolis or Camp David or in someone's palace or somoeone else's hut, are occasions in which, merely by having them and never confronting the Muslim side with what they believe, based on Islam itself, always promote the Muslim agenda, always work to confuse the Infidels and weaken their resolve.

Even if not a single document is signed, the meeting itself will be a victory for those waging the Lesser Jihad -- and the Greater Jihad, against all of us, as well.

Fools are in charge, fools who will not do their homework, and yet presume to protect us. Here, and in Israel, and all over the E.U., formerly known as Europe, a place consisting of nation-states each with its own identity, history, language, literature, sense of itself, now reduced to a politically appeasing, civilizationaly compliant, deliberately homogenizing and steadily bureaucratizing, Big Market.

Whatever happens in Annapolis will be a defeat for the Infidels, and a victory for the "Palestinians" and the larger Camp of Islam, unless the One Thing That Must Not Be Named, The Hate Whose Name We Dare Not Speak, is discussed: those texts, those tenets, those attitudes, that model Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya.

Would they, could they, dare they, might they, the rices and the olmerts, the bushes and the livnis, and all those busy little preparers of the meeting, and its agenda, raise any of this?

Don't be silly. Get real.

Posted by: Hugh at October 3, 2007 12:28 PM

Hmmm...so to sum it up:
"gimme, gimme, gimme...or
we'll riot, riot, riot."
Forget the fact such a ludicrous line worked in certain areas of the populace here in the US some time back...
...sounds like an ultimatum to me, not that it comes as any surprise at all, since they've been planning something, anything, to trigger a war with Israel...

...just more proof that REAL "peace" (not that pathetic window dressing BS they claim) is not, nor has ever been, in the cards with them.

Watch for the next trojan horse (which was throw about not long ago, but rejected for obvious reasons), Egypt "needing" to deploy armored vehicles to gaza to "quell" any uprising. Yeah, right.

Posted by: jcom972 at October 3, 2007 12:38 PM

...I hope I am not stepping out of line,,,but here is the scoop on the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya. .....it is worth reading...and learning...

February 01, 2005
"REFORMING" ISLAM
Hugh Fitzgerald

When such contemporary would-be “reformers within Islam” as Canadian Irshad Manji are given attention, the admiring interviewer does not bother to raise the awkward question – just how does one “reform” a religion when all of its canonical texts, Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, are immutable.

In the modern history of Islam, the heyday of supposed “reformers” was the period 1900-1930. This corresponded to the revelation, to the most advanced people in the Muslim world, of the weakness of Islamic societies, and the understanding that their political and economic and intellectual and social failures were attributable to the tenets of Islam itself, and the attitudes they engendered. But there is no such recognition today. Islam is cushioned from its failures by the accident of geology that provides oil wealth to some, by the solicitousness with which Infidel countries hasten to supply foreign aid, including military aid, to others, and by the attitude of extreme deference toward Muslim sensibilities that, if continued, will have catastrophic consequences for the Infidels themselves, and for those who, within Islam, would like to create the conditions where Muslims themselves will have to do something about Islam, whether to interpret away its literalism, or to constrain its practice in the manner of Atatürk.

In Islam, no Infidel state, whatever its dimensions, can be permitted, for that would violate the essence of Islam. Islam, said Mohammad, is “to dominate and not to be dominated.” No land once part of dar al-Islam can ever fall under Infidel control again. The land on which Israel now sits, and other lands, including the Balkans, much of south-central Europe, much of Russia, most of India, and of course Spain, were once all part of dar al-Islam, and must be returned to it. But Israel, an Infidel sovereign state run by the despised Jews, and sitting smack in the middle of dar al-Islam, is particularly disturbing.

If the Islamic basis for Arab opposition to Israel were understood, then much that confuses commentators would become clear. It is irrelevant what Israel’s borders are; if it exists, it remains an affront, an outrage, a catastrophe, the greatest injustice in the history of the world (as Arab spokesmen routinely say).

The very phrase a “final peace settlement” rings hollow to anyone familiar with the tenets of Islam. For there can never be a “final peace settlement” between Moslems and non-Moslems. The model for treaties is the agreement made between Muhammad and the Meccans in 628 A.D., the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya. It was supposed to be a “truce” treaty that would last 10 years. It lasted scarcely 18 months, when Muhammad, feeling that his forces had grown sufficiently, breached the agreement on a pretext, and attacked the Meccans. As Majid Khaddui notes in War and Peace in Islam, this Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya became the model, and the basis, for all future “treaties” with Infidel peoples and polities.

Public discussions about Arab-Israeli negotiations and assorted peace-processes never devote attention to the long and grim history of agreements and treaties between Israel and the Arab states. The Arabs were not interested in any agreements with that Infidel state for, despite the Israeli victory in 1949, they thought they could, within a reasonable period, go in for the kill. And so there were no "peace treaties" but, at Arab insistence, only agreements that did not recognize any final borders, just armistice lines. Despite the fact that those agreements included a cessation of hostile acts, more than 19,000 separate acts of terrorism against Israel took place between 1949 and 1956, from Egyptian-held territory alone. The Sinai Campaign of 1956 was launched to end that terrorism; Israel won the entire Sinai. In the mid-1950s, the heyday of John Foster Dulles, Islam was seen not as a threat to the West, but only a much-touted “bulwark” against Communism. At the same time, it was believed that certain Arab Muslim states had to be bribed to keep from falling into the Communist camp. Both beliefs, though contradictory, led to American pressure on Israel to withdraw, for some flimsy guarantees, from the Sinai.

When he was President of Egypt, Nasser broke every commitment he made to President Eisenhower about freedom of shipping in the Straits of Tiran, about allowing Israeli ships to pass through the Suez Canal, about terrorist attacks launched from Egypt. That the Israelis continue to be surprised that the agreements they make with Muslim Arabs are eventually breached by the Arab side, testifies to their own remarkable insouciance, in failing to investigate what the law of war and peace in Islam expresses in such crystalline fashion.

And today Israel prepares to make "peace" based on some “road map, ” in order, it is hoped, to arrive at something called a “two-state solution.” This time there is a more plausible, milder-mannered "Palestinian" leader than the late Arafat. Yet the doctrines of Islam remain, and those doctrines will continue to fashion the deepest impulses and beliefs of Muslims. Whatever Arafat or Abbas or anyone else claims or feigns, and whatever any war-weary Israeli hopes, or whatever any useful Western tools or fools Muslims may exploit believe, no real and durable peace can be made with any Infidel sovereign state. It is the duty of Muslims, mandated by Islam and the example of Muhammad, to renew conflict, whatever agreement has been signed, as soon as the Muslim side is stronger. This means that deterrence, and only deterrence, can keep the peace. The doctrine of necessity, or darura – i.e., the fact of an Infidel enemy possessing, or seeming to possess, overwhelming power, is the only thing that Arab leaders, or at least those reluctant to make war, can use as an excuse not to do so. This is why, if one were genuinely interested in preserving peace between Israel and the Arabs, one would be looking at every possible way to strengthen the perception of Israel as impregnable – and to do nothing which, to Muslims looking at a map, might make them gain a different impression.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at October 3, 2007 1:51 PM

"If the [Israeli and Palestinian] negotiators don't reach an agreement before the conference, there will be no point in holding it," he said. "Let's bear in mind that invitations to the conference have not been issued yet."

I agree. There is no point in having it. Seems like a waste of tax dollars and time.

Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at October 3, 2007 2:18 PM

"Resolved, That--

(1) during this time of conflict, in order to demonstrate solidarity with and support for members of the community of Islam in the United States and throughout the world, the House of Representatives recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world; and

(2) in observance of and out of respect for the commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, the House of Representatives acknowledges the onset of Ramadan and expresses its deepest respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this significant occasion."

This makes me want to puke already, enough is enough, when are they(our leaders) going to start showing support for their own people?

Posted by: Stinkyinfidel at October 3, 2007 2:29 PM

The Arabs would have to publicly and definitively Recognise Israel for Israel to sign anything.

It will be another "Peace in our Time" moment and we all know what comes next.

It is only a Question of who makes the first strike.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at October 3, 2007 2:32 PM

There's an old-fashion term for what "moderate" Fatah is doing here. It's called extortion. But then isn't that what criminal enterprises have done over the centuries?

Ah, the burden to the world which is Islam never ceases, which makes me wonder from time to time if an ultimate showdown between the Islamic and non-Islamic world is nothing short of inevitable. Seems either Islam prevails or Islam is extinguished (or at least extremely marginalized). Just as there could be no long-term co-existence with Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, so there doesn't appear a way for the non-Islamic world to continue to co-exist with Mohammedans. But what makes this all the more difficult is that Islam is transnational (like Marxism) and deceptively hides its thirst for world conquest behind a religious veil.

Posted by: Wellington at October 3, 2007 2:53 PM

"If the [Israeli and Palestinian] negotiators don't reach an agreement before the conference, there will be no point in holding it," he said.

Um.....isn't that backwards? Call me crazy, but if the negotiators DO reach an agreement before the conference...doesn't that elminate the need to have a conference? Isn't that the whole POINT of having a conference in the first place?!?

I know, I shouldn't get so upset at something that's just a big excuse for Israel to capitulate to its mortal enemies' insane demands AGAIN for no conceivable gain. Round and round and round we go. Excuse me while I weep for the nation of Israel. *sigh*

Posted by: Professor PyroSkank at October 3, 2007 5:10 PM

Hey guys - do I understand that this conference - which sounds horribly like it will be a sort of disguised lynching of Israel - will be taking place in Annapolis? In November?

That gives every pro-Israel person in the USA, and especially those here who know ALL ABOUT Treaty of Hudaybiyya etc, about a month to get cracking. This one has got to be BIG.

Surely surely surely HUGE protests can be held - every single day if it can possibly be managed between now and then, and during the conference itself. With large placards saying "Resist the Jihad" and "No Hudaybiyya Treaty", and "No More Treacherous Hudnas" and "No More Jizya" and other slogans cleverer than that, that I can't think of right now but surely someone here can; and hundreds, perhaps even thousands of letters of support - each containing the gist of Hugh's counsel above - pouring in to the Israeli ambassador to the USA and their ambassador to the UN, and to other Jewish bodies as appropriate. There are Jews, in the USA and in Israel, who ARE clued up on this thing. There are ex-Muslims like Wafa Sultan and Walid Shoebat.

I live too far away. But if I were in the USA I think I would be wrapped in an Israeli flag and sitting as near to the conference location as the security people would let me get, and I would be doing a Gandhi-style fast against the ghastly betrayal of Israel that seems to be preparing in the West. I would be saying what Hugh has just said here, at the top of my voice, over and over and over. Hell, I'd be reading out loud and clear, passages from Bat Yeor's books, and Bostom's new book on Muslim anti-Semitism, and the relevant hadiths about hudna and Hudaybiyya and everything the Muslims have done to the Jews.

As for the church leaders in America - every single one of them that has ever made a public pronouncement about Israel has to have their nose rubbed in 1. Treaty of Hudaybiyya and why it is important ie it governs Islamic warmaking TODAY and 2. every diabolically hateful clause of the Hamas Charter, explaining that it merely makes explicit what has been the Arab Muslim agenda in the Mideast all along, whatever language that agenda was sometimes disguised in for western - or Soviet! - ears. Many among the 'Christian Zionists' and the Evangelicals are still woefully naive about the role that Islam plays in the Middle East. They can see that it's hostile but they don't grasp the nitty gritty.

Read the damnable Hamas Charter out loud, all of it, in the public square, with analysis from Robert and Bat Yeor. Talk about the dhimma, which explains the fact that Muslim Arabs in the MidEast hate the 'uppity Jews' of Israel for much the same reasons, and with an even greater hatred, than the KKK in the deep south hated 'uppity niggers'. Tell people about the rallying cries of Muslim mobs pogrom-bent, from the 19th century and earlier - 'Kill the Jews!', 'The Jews are our dogs!'

Anyway - surely everything I've just said, and all sorts of other things even cleverer, have already been thought about, and planned, ready to go into motion? Go for it, people. This is a great chance to publicly rip the mask right off the RoP.

And if you're a praying person, while doing all else possible, pray.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at October 3, 2007 5:20 PM

I agree with Pelayo......
Why bother to hold the conference, the Palestinians/ Fatah have decided what they want and if people don't agree there will be more bloodshed.
Really, they cannot lose their bullying mentality can they? The word compromise, to them, means everyone else must do as they want or they'll throw teddy out of the cot and spit their dummies as people.

Posted by: marilyn at October 4, 2007 12:33 AM

Can there be any more thought that our elected leaders "don't understand" , or are stupid, or won't crack a book to learn about islam?

A short year after 9/11 was enough time, but they still don't know, or understand?

How long can people, who do know about islam, keep telling themelves that if only "they" would listen and learn, progress can be made?

Can we accept that perhaps the "agenda" they are after is not on the same place and time we hold onto? Are we hearing what they are really pushing the world to?

Are they in he fog, or are we?

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at October 4, 2007 1:26 AM

The only thing we should be saying to these people is 'Get on your knees and put your hands up'...

Stinkyinfidel...I agree with you...disgusting...They don't represent me, whoever wrote that crap should be fired or impeached.

Posted by: duh_swami at October 4, 2007 2:40 AM