| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
An Orwellian story on the Annapolis Appeasement Party: it's Israel that isn't ready for peace. Forget about those suicide bombers and the annihilationist rhetoric. The ones who don't want peace are, of course, the Jews. Maybe Matthew Lee means that Israel isn't ready for total surrender.
Meanwhile, there is nothing much in this document. They're going to establish a Palestinian state. Great. But then, unless Israel decides to rush headlong to suicide, that will stall on the Palestinian unwillingness to recognize Israel. Or it will stall when the Palestinians recognize Israel but then in Arabic say the opposite, and act as if they still believe it has no legitimacy. And they are certain to do that.
"Israel, Palestinians OK negotiating plan," by Matthew Lee for Associated Press:
ANNAPOLIS, Md. - Israeli and Palestinian leaders agreed Tuesday to immediately resume long-stalled talks toward a deal by the end of next year that would create an independent Palestinian state, using a U.S.-hosted Mideast peace conference to launch their first negotiations in seven years.In a joint statement read by President Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas pledged to start discussions on the core issues of the conflict next month and accepted the United States as arbiter of interim steps.
"We agree to immediately launch good-faith bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues without exception, as specified in previous agreements," it said.
"We agree to engage in vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations and shall make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008," said the document, which was reached after weeks of intense diplomacy and was uncertain until just before Bush announced it.[...]
Yet none of those difficult issues were mentioned in the joint document, which was to be endorsed by the conference participants, including key Arab nations like Saudi Arabia and Syria, later in the day.
And, despite their agreement and impassioned rhetoric, neither Olmert nor Abbas showed any sign of yielding on the fundamental differences that have led to the collapse of all previous peace efforts: the borders of a Palestinian state, the status of disputed Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees.
But Olmert did promise that "the negotiations will address all the issues which thus far have been evaded. We will not avoid any subject. While this will be an extremely difficult process for many of us, it is nevertheless inevitable."
For his part, Abbas made an impassioned appeal to Israelis to support the peace process, saying that war and terrorism "belong to the past."
Oh yeah? Well, since you are one of the chief ones responsible for it, now you will have to back up those words.
"Neither we nor you must beg for peace from the other. It is a joint interest for us and you," he said. "Peace and freedom is a right for us, just as peace and security is a right for you and us.""It is time for the cycle of blood, violence and occupation to end. It is time for us to look at the future together with confidence and hope. It is time for this tortured land that has been called the land of love and peace to live up to its name," Abbas said.
Occupation. Most will take this to mean he will accept the 1967 borders. But they weren't acceptable to the Palestinians before 1967.
His speech was immediately rejected by Hamas, which stormed to power in the Gaza Strip in June, a month before Bush announced plans for the peace conference.Abbas "has no mandate to discuss, to agree, or to erase any word related to our rights," Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said in Gaza. "He is isolated (and) represents himself only."
In the face of such resistance, Arab support for the process is deemed essential and Olmert, speaking directly to those at the conference who have no relations with his country, said: "It is time to end the boycott and alienation toward the state of Israel."
"We no longer and you no longer have the privilege of clinging to dreams which are disconnected from the suffering of our peoples," he said.
After reading aloud the freshly reached agreement, Bush shook hands with Abbas and Olmert. Then those leaders shook each other's hands.
To maximize the moment of potential breakthrough, the three went through the gestures again. This time, they clasped hands together. And, for a moment, Bush stepped back and raised his hands to encourage the other two to come together for a handshake, which they did.
It harkened back to a memorable image of his predecessor, Bill Clinton, in one of his own Mideast efforts.[...]
Yes, and so much came from that!
Saeb Erekat, a principal Palestinian negotiator, sounded upbeat, saying that after seven years of a stalemate "now we have an opportunity" to get back to serious talks with broad backing."We have the whole world. We have President Bush. And it is going to be two states living side by side in peace," Erekat said. "Today is over. What's important is tomorrow."
Privately, however, members of the Palestinian delegation expressed skepticism that a deal resolving all the so-called final status issues could be reached within a year, and by the end of Bush's term in January 2009.
The joint document is general and doesn't deal with the difficult issues that that long divided Israel and the Palestinians. And the negotiation process is expected to be very tough and very long, according to Palestinians, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they didn't want to publicly spoil the conference's positive atmosphere.
The Palestinians believe Israel is not ready for total peace and Olmert will face a difficult time politically as any deal takes shape. Meantime, Abbas is seen as reliable, but also weak and a leader who can't in the end deliver on an agreement.
Posted by Robert at November 27, 2007 2:13 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
It is the other way around and always has been.
Posted by: Mackie![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 27, 2007 2:25 PM
Palestinians slogan: "My way or the highway"
Posted by: champ at November 27, 2007 2:28 PM
Erekat's words, as expected and predicted, should be broadcast worldwide, as planned...combined with actual events that paint him as the hypocrite he & his ilk are, exposing their M.O.
http://www.geocities.com/media_maccabee/Turnspeak.html
so that the entire world doesn't forget what a hypocrite, and a liar, such scum really are...
and continue whittling away at the ill-gotten support for such terroristic pondscum, forcing them into 1 of 2 options...
1) face the fact of having to practice what they preach to the world...OR...
2) face the wrath of a justified-beyond-doubt Israel & its armed forces in a necessary war.
I love watching someone play originators of chess at their own game, and kicking their ass in the process...especially in front of the whole world, where the mOslems are extremely nervous (gee...wonder why? lol).
lol
at November 27, 2007 2:32 PM
Reality is that our media will fall for every lying word that the muslims will spew. We should stand outside and hand our guys flyers on what the word 'taqiyya' means, and how it applies to islam and its followers. I wish I were on that coastline right now.
Posted by: R_not at November 27, 2007 2:36 PM
Deja vous all over again.
S.S.D.P. (Same S*#t Different President).
Posted by: walterc at November 27, 2007 2:37 PM
They aren't quite ready peace as defined as submission,death. Strangely appeasement has been tried nearly every decade since 1948 with disastrous results. Perhaps collective suicide would be suffice. Too many Israelis seem eager to test those waters. Perhaps it's time to revisit that old Kirk Douglass classic: "Cast a giant shadow" for a brush up just in case many have forgotten.
Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at November 27, 2007 2:42 PM
More from the principal Palestinian "negotiator"
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/923076.html
"Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestine Liberation Organization, rejected on Monday the government's demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
In an interview with Israel Radio, Erekat said that 'no state in the world connects its national identity to a religious identity'."
Saudi Arabia, Iran...
Oh, he meant other than Muslim states!!
Posted by: alansfmd at November 27, 2007 2:49 PM
True, R_not...the masses (understandably) buy what the media wants them to, as well as what the media is limited to...not the WHOLE story.
That's why patience is highly encouraged, instead of panic in the face of seemingly bad news, which may prove NOT to be in the end after all...
...for example...just in...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071127/wl_mideast_afp/mideastdiplomacyiran
...as expected, iran is forced to counter, or lose face, because there's a lot more than the general public is paying attention to.
It's one major reason I'm not criticizing the masses for judging the book by its cover, without reading it first...it's common, especially given the long documented fait accompli of said pro-islamist media in the first place.
Regardless, looks like things are about to come full circle, forcing the mOslems to "put up or shut up" lest their words fall on deaf ears afterwards...
...and if push comes to shove, Israel will prove justified whatever it does in response, and the world can/t/won't say a damned thing, especially the mOslems.
Let's let it play out first...as no matter what happens now, the mOslems are committed to their rhetoric, or forced to expose their two-faced treachery forever. Either way, they lose something...and this is just the opening round.
Posted by: jcom972 at November 27, 2007 2:49 PM
Total peace = total capitulation.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 27, 2007 3:14 PM
"Forget about those suicide bombers and the annihilationist rhetoric."
Yes, and forget about Israeli snipers shooting at children, and Israeli bulldozers razing people's homes to the ground. Blame the big bad Palestinians for everything. After all, Israel can do no wrong.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 27, 2007 3:41 PM
(...but lest people accuse me of being some sort of jihadist, let it be known that I have no love for either side of the conflict. They are exhibiting the mentality of children fighting over a piece of candy. Not something that appeals to me.)
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 27, 2007 3:43 PM
I find Erekat's statements to be laughable.On the contrary,it seems to me the Palestians were never really interested in making peace with Israel. Just take a look at who is vacuously offering to give up more land and who is carrying out the atrocities by sending kasaam rockets into Sderot or ambushing motorists and you will be able to distinctly note who is ready for peace and who isn't.
Posted by: Jew Chick at November 27, 2007 3:51 PM
Roobart,
I hope you are not so naive to be alluding to Mohammed Al-Dura and Rachel Carrie. Also, I've never quite heard the conflict trivialized to a dispute over candy. That's just fascinating.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 27, 2007 3:52 PM
Bad idea to give the Palestinians their own "country". Now everytime they attack and Israel responds, it could potentially turn into WW 3. Honestly, who see's a positive ending if the Palestinians officially get a state of thier own?
Islam is an mysterious religion, with a false & murderous prophet, its people follow the cycle of the moon, weird, but I suppose it is very much like thier outlook on life, which is dark/scary. Cover their women from head to toe in black, and have hatred for anything that doesn't think exactly like they do.
The western mind in not conditioned to understand this ideaology/cult way of thinking and living. Seriously, people can't understand what a "jihad" lifestyle is and what it entails, so therefore they dismiss it.
That is why so many westerners are so ignorant to the threat, they think everyone in the entire wolrd "thinks like they do" for the simple common denominator that "they are human too."
Wish it was that simple.
at November 27, 2007 3:56 PM
Erekat's statements ARE laughable--as laughable as the fact that some people take them seriously.
...well, all conferences need someone like him for comic relief, I suppose.
at November 27, 2007 3:58 PM
"Also, I've never quite heard the conflict trivialized to a dispute over candy."
You got two people fighting over (more or less) the same piece of land. "It's mine!" "No, it's mine!" It does remind me of two children squabbling over a particularly delicious pastry. They ACT like it, too.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 27, 2007 4:02 PM
Of course Israel is not ready for peace. "Peace" to the Palestinians means complete, total, utter submission to Islam. I pray Israel is NEVER ready for the kind of peace.
at November 27, 2007 4:18 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w57JLmY5dmw
A bit of jihadist humor to liven up the day.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 27, 2007 4:24 PM
Roobart writes, "You got two people fighting over (more or less) the same piece of land. "It's mine!" "No, it's mine!" It does remind me of two children squabbling over a particularly delicious pastry. They ACT like it, too."
Hmm! I wonder if you'd feel the same if someone stole your house and claimed it belonged to them? This is precisely what is happening to the Jews who are being thrown out of their own land.
Posted by: Razdan at November 27, 2007 4:30 PM
"Hmm! I wonder if you'd feel the same if someone stole your house and claimed it belonged to them? This is precisely what is happening to the Jews who are being thrown out of their own land."
Palestinians, too, lost their lands--some through force, others by leaving to flee from fighting. So what? Land is land, no matter what "sacred values" one attaches to it--and at the moment, you have two sides squabbling over it.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 27, 2007 4:34 PM
Intentional bloopers isn't humor...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSpwxOFHo70
the real thing...now THAT's HUMOR, especially when the music is by Boots Randolph.
;-D
at November 27, 2007 4:36 PM
It's not about a piece of candy. It's about the survival of Israel. And that is all it is about. That is what every "negotiation" in these interminable and so far idiotic and unconfidence-building peace-processes, the ones that never dare to mention, never dare to take into account, Islam, and consequently, from the viewpoint of the Infidels involved. should be regarded as dangerous as well as worthless, are all about. The survival of Israel.
And, directly related, to the understanding, by Infidels elsewhere, that Islam and Muslims are not to be assuaged, not to be bought off from the essential doctrines of Islam, and not to be encouraged by one group of Infidels sacrificing another group (starting, presumably, with tiny Israel, about which so much Muslim noise is made) in the hope that this will tame an untameable beast. They do not satisfy, but whet, Arab and Muslim appetites. They feed triumphalism, with direct and immediate consequences for themselves. Infidels have to re-learn, since so many have forgotten, that they must stick together. They must never sacrifice one set, or take the Muslim side in any quarrel. Never. Not in the Balkans. Not in the subcontinent. Nowhere.
I repeat: Only one thing is at stake here. The Survival of Isreael.
Posted by: Hugh at November 27, 2007 4:42 PM
If the “Palestinians” would put down their weapons, there would be peace with Israel today, if the Israelis put down their weapons,
there would be no Israel!
at November 27, 2007 4:43 PM
Palestinians, too, lost their lands--some through force, others by leaving to flee from fighting. So what? Land is land, no matter what "sacred values" one attaches to it--and at the moment, you have two sides squabbling over it.
You are absolutely wrong on all counts. First of all there was never any Palestine to begin with... so who exactly do you mean by Palestinians?
Posted by: Razdan at November 27, 2007 4:43 PM
Oh, is now a bad time to remind the readers of the "Big Stick" diplomacy in the works...
While the arab "delegations" showed up for seemingly easy pickings of the proverbial carrot, they suddenly find out it also comes with a REALLY BIG STICK...right...in...their...face.
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1318
As the old Gomer Pyle joke goes:
"SURPRISE! SURPRISE! SURPRISE! That ain't my finger, either!"
Welcome to United States Territory.
*WEG*
at November 27, 2007 4:44 PM
It's not about a piece of candy. It's about the survival of Israel. And that is all it is about. That is what every "negotiation" in these interminable and so far idiotic and unconfidence-building peace-processes, the ones that never dare to mention, never dare to take into account, Islam, and consequently, from the viewpoint of the Infidels involved. should be regarded as dangerous as well as worthless, are all about. The survival of Israel.
And, directly related, to the understanding, by Infidels elsewhere, that Islam and Muslims are not to be assuaged, not to be bought off from the essential doctrines of Islam, and not to be encouraged by one group of Infidels sacrificing another group (starting, presumably, with tiny Israel, about which so much Muslim noise is made) in the hope that this will tame an untameable beast. They do not satisfy, but whet, Arab and Muslim appetites. They feed triumphalism, with direct and immediate consequences for themselves. Infidels have to re-learn, since so many have forgotten, that they must stick together. They must never sacrifice one set, or take the Muslim side in any quarrel. Never. Not in the Balkans. Not in the subcontinent. Nowhere.
I repeat: Only one thing is at stake here. The Survival of Israel.
No. Let me revise that. The only thing at stake a these conferences in the Middle East is the Survival of Israel. That is what is being negotiated over, or away. But at the same time, and unrecognized by Infidels who deem themselves safely above that particular fray, their fate is also being decided. Any victory over Israel, any forcing of Israel into a state still more perilous than what Israeli citizens must daily endure, will heighten the certainy of Muslims everywhere that they are winnning, that they cannot be stopped, that they are on the march. Israel is not to be thrown to the wolves, because those wolves will only get bigger, and stronger, and have more cubs, and they will all be hungry, and eager to maraud.
Posted by: Hugh at November 27, 2007 4:45 PM
If the “Palestinians” would put down their weapons, there would be peace with Israel today, if the Israelis put down their weapons,
there would be no Israel!
at November 27, 2007 4:45 PM
"You are absolutely wrong on all counts. First of all there was never any Palestine to begin with... so who exactly do you mean by Palestinians?"
There were also no "Israelis" as such until Israel was officially created. Both identities are constructed ones. Again, so what? In the end, they're fighting over land. If either side wanted peace, they'd have it by now. As it is, there are people on both sides who have profited, and continue to profit, from the continuation of hostilities.
As I said: children.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 27, 2007 4:47 PM
I repeat: Only one thing is at stake here. The Survival of Isreael.
Posted by: Hugh
You are right, Hugh.
However this whole thing is a 'smoke and mirrors' show. P.T.Barnum would be impressed.
It is being held to make it look like the world really 'cares'. They don't.
Someone like Bush or Blair want credit for solving this problem and it ain't gonna happen.
It's being going on for almost 60 years.
To make it worse Israel has the worst leader ever.
Posted by: Gramfan at November 27, 2007 4:47 PM
How many tax dollars did they waste on this sham of a conference?
And why?
Why the Bush policy to make nice with all the Sunnis?
Posted by: Mister Ghost
at November 27, 2007 4:54 PM
"Why the Bush policy to make nice with all the Sunnis?"
That's easy--to salvage what he can of the wreck that is his legacy.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 27, 2007 4:56 PM
[Abbas] said, "Peace and FREEDOM is a right for US, just as peace and SECURITY is a right for YOU and US." (caps added)
So you see, only the Moslems get freedom. The Israelis don't get freedom; they get security -- the security of all dhimmis under the rightful rule of their Islamic masters.
at November 27, 2007 4:57 PM
A helluva lot less than what's wasted on the Dept of Education that educates nobody, to a huge margin.
Posted by: jcom972 at November 27, 2007 4:57 PM
Today on the radio (I believe it was CBS) the reporting on the summit began with an interview with a Jewish ("extreme right wing" of course) protester, saying how Israel should not make any concessions. Of course, no coverage of history to explain why he might say that, and no soundbite to allow him to explain his motivation, just that he doesn't want to make concessions.
Then, to be "fair" and to give "the other side of the story", they interviewed a "Palestinian" man who owned a business that made, I believe, fruit juice. It was all about how the Israelis had shut down the border crossing (why was it shut down? didn't say) causing his business to close, how the poor "Palestinians" in the Gaza Strip are isolated and cut off from humanitarian aid by the Israelis, etc.
In my anger, I didn't catch the names of the reporters. One day when the public understands the principles of jihad (that day is apparently not here yet), these reporters must be called in to explain their deliberate manipulation and twisting of the facts. Unfortunately, like Walter Duranty before them, there will almost certainly be no punishment, other than the humiliation of having their deception finally uncovered.
Posted by: special_guest at November 27, 2007 5:08 PM
Yes, they won't have to suffer for their stupidity and negligence and arrogance. Others will. Others have. But they should.
Posted by: Hugh at November 27, 2007 5:11 PM
That's S.O.P. for commie broadcasting system (home of the raTHergate fraud), since they're just as desperate over all this as the mOslems are. That's why their ratings are almost nonexistent, save the proverbial "all 12 viewers" that's become a laughingstock term these days...and rightfully so.
It's also why few, if any, probably ever even heard it.
at November 27, 2007 5:15 PM
RoobartSbunsar said
If either side wanted peace, they'd have it by now.
Just curious, what exactly could the Israelis say or do that would appease the "Palestinians"? It's important, because that information could help resolve other Islamic conflicts in Thailand, Russia, Serbia, Somalia, Philippines, Sudan, and now France. So, please be specific.
As it is, there are people on both sides who have profited, and continue to profit, from the continuation of hostilities.
I've read alot of stupid postings on blogs, and I don't make editorial comments very often, but this one is in the running for the stupidest posting yet. You honestly think that Israelis profit from having missiles shot into their schoolyards and farmlands? What, the sappers who get to go defuse the unexploded ordinance are the foundation of the Israeli economy? The guys who get to go pick up the body parts after a suicide bombing are lifting the national GDP? If Israel didn't have to spend a relatively huge portion of their national budget on the military to keep their neighbors at bay, they could be much more propserous than they are. Which Israelis are profiting from Islamic jihad? Which ones?
Posted by: special_guest at November 27, 2007 5:30 PM
"The Palestinians believe Israel is not ready for total peace"
Meaning conquered, cowed, converted to islam.
at November 27, 2007 5:32 PM
"I've read a lot of stupid postings on blogs, and I don't make editorial comments very often, but this one is in the running for the stupidest posting yet."
...stupider than Naseem's posts? IMPOSSIBLE!
"You honestly think that Israelis profit from having missiles shot into their schoolyards and farmlands?"
No, but they do profit from having an enemy. Weapons-makers and anyone and everyone who manufactures anything even remotely related to hostilities profits obscenely. Then there are the politicians and lobbyists who have built their careers on confronting the Palestinians. Their counterparts on the Palestinian side have done exactly the same. It's the same old story one finds in virtually every conflict. Both sides pay lip service to peace, yet both sides want war.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 27, 2007 5:35 PM
Roob -- anything is possible.
Naseem IS stupid, but the two of you are in a dead heat for first place.
Posted by: champ at November 27, 2007 5:43 PM
"Naseem IS stupid, but the two of you are in a dead heat for first place."
There is one major difference:
I have NEVER insulted the great prophet Jerry Springer (PBUH).
Naseem has.
Ergo, I am better than Naseem.
End of story.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 27, 2007 5:45 PM
No, but they do profit from having an enemy. Weapons-makers and anyone and everyone who manufactures anything even remotely related to hostilities profits obscenely. Then there are the politicians and lobbyists who have built their careers on confronting the Palestinians. Their counterparts on the Palestinian side have done exactly the same. It's the same old story one finds in virtually every conflict. Both sides pay lip service to peace, yet both sides want war.
This is yet another example of moral equivalence BS that is so pervasive in our societies. If you cannot see the difference between two sets of people: one willing to live peacefully with others in a principle of 'live and let live' and the other insistent on complete annhilation of the other... then I don't know what to call you? Stupid is too kind a word for that.
Posted by: Razdan at November 27, 2007 5:50 PM
"one willing to live peacefully with others in a principle of 'live and let live' and the other insistent on complete annhilation of the other... then I don't know what to call you? Stupid is too kind a word for that."
Who was it who said that insults are a sign of weak intelligence?
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 27, 2007 5:53 PM
...and again, if someone is going to insult me, please make it creative. "Stupid," "idiot," and "pinko commie troll" and the like are wearing thin.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 27, 2007 5:54 PM
"........ Again, so what? In the end, they're fighting over land. If either side wanted peace, they'd have it by now. As it is, there are people on both sides who have profited, and continue to profit, from the continuation of hostilities.
As I said: children."
My God! Why should the Jews have a little - bitty - comma in the Mid East? The Ayrabs have taken everything else - all the xtian lands, all the other Pagan lands, all the indigenuous lands.
The islamics has stolen - stolen - outright eveyrthing else. And they're still doing it.
The only ones with balls to stop them are the Jews- no one else. NOT the UK - NOT the U.S. - etc.
Forget about the past, that's water under a bridge - that's 60 yrs ago. And in the meantime, the islamics have chewed away, bits and pieces of countries everywhere.
Israel is just a tiny comma. Just look at this map:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/world_maps/muslim_distribution.jpg
These ruthless, vicious, barbaric HORDES are advancing!
You think both sides are children? You're mistaken! The side of the Palestinians - even the common people - are vicious. What is there to defend about these people? They have no pity, or compassion, no "milk of human kindness" - none - NADA. Not even for their own little girls. They cut their throats!
These people hardly deserve defending, these "Palestinians." BAH!
I used to feel so sorry about the Palestinians, but they're horrible, horrible. They've done everything to harrass and get rid of any other Peoples or religions there. What is there to defend there? And in most = rather - in the majority of cases, they don't even need their clerics to encourage them - they do horrors by themselves.
Posted by: allat at November 27, 2007 5:56 PM
"'You are absolutely wrong on all counts. First of all there was never any Palestine to begin with... so who exactly do you mean by Palestinians?' [from a previous posting by another poster, who then comments]
There were also no "Israelis" as such until Israel was officially created. Both identities are constructed ones. Again, so what? In the end, they're fighting over land. If either side wanted peace, they'd have it by now. As it is, there are people on both sides who have profited, and continue to profit, from the continuation of hostilities."
-- from a posting above
No, but the word "Palestinians" and the invention of the "Palestinian people" was a deliberate construct. It did begin right away. It was not the term used, ever since there were Arabs in what Western Christendom called "Palestine." The phrase was never used by the local Arabs until after the defeat in the Six-Day War. And then, having jettisoned Shukairy a few years before, the Arabs collectively decided, with a little help from public-relations advisers in the West, to thoroughly redo their presentation.
The most important thing was to redefine the conflict. No longer all those Arabs against a tiny Jewish state. No. Now, by an act of optical ollusion, the tiny Jewish state would be transormed into a vast empire, this Greater Israel (why, the same BBC newscasters who routinely refer to Lebanon as that "tiny country" and to Jordan as that "tiny country" -- I hear it all the time -- for some reason never use that epithet with Israel. Never. Not once) which, even if it came into being, would be all of the size of Massachusetts, and less than one-one-thousandth the size of the Arab states.
But the absurdities pile up. It was time to rename the local Arabs, both those in the territories won by Israel that were part of the original Palestine Mandate (Gaza, the "West Bank" quondam Judea and Samaria), and those who had been called simply, and a bit too easily, "Arab refugees" -- by every single Arab spokesman at the U.N., the Arab League, and elsewhere -- living in those villages (always described as "refugees camps" though some are full-fledged cities, and all have stores and built-up areas; these are not tent cities -- the kind of thing that refugees in Darfur must endure) in Jordan, Lebanon, and so on.
The term "Israeli" was not deliberately invented to score political points. Far from it. The Jews of Israel are really what is in play here, the survival of a Jewish state, of the right of the Jews to have a state.
It is absurd to equate the deliberate and sinister creation of this fake "Palestinian identity" (google "Zohair Mohsen" and "Palestinian people" for more) for political ends, with the simple term "Israeli" to describe those who are citizens of the state of Israel.
So let's do it otherwise. Let's, more truthfully, talk about Arabs and Jews. Arabs and Jews in the Middle East. Do the Jews, who come from the Middle East, and a million of whom in 1948, having endured for centuries the life of dhimmis under Muslim rule (save in those places, such as North Africa, where the brief rule by European powers led to Jewish emancipation from the burden of living under Shari'a -- thanks in Algeria to the loi Cremieux of 1870)left, and most fled to the state of Israel? Do the Jews have a right to a state, a state that can be defended against permanent Muslim aggression, or do they not?
And as for the local Arabs, whose numbers have been so exaggerated -- few bother to consult the Ottoman cadastral or demographic records, such as they are, in pronouncing on the subject of "Palestine" and fewer still put that "Palestine" and the non-Muslim and non-Aarb minorities of the Middle East into their proer light, their proper perspective -- for the Kurds also, now is perhaps the time to add, have a right to an independent state, and Lebanon, by rights, should remain a haven, a final haven, for the Arabic-using Christians -- not all, by a long shot, are Arabs -- in the MIddle East.
So there it is. A Jewish state, permanently imperiled, and asked to voluntarily make itself still more imperiled. And the implacable relentless Arabs, using salami tactics, and their vast unearned wealth, to apply every kind of pressure to get the world's Infidels to join in the gang-up, and to push Israel back to clearly indefensible borders, without control of vital aquifers, without control of traditional invasion routes, eight miles wide at its waist, from Qalqilya to the sea. And this is the one country, the only country, that the most persecuted tribe in human history, having recently been the victim of the most unbelievable crime in human history, that exists for that tribe to embody its national identity without any douubts or need to conform to what others would have.
And on the other hand, there aree the Arabs, who having denied or attempted to deny every non-Muslim and non-Arab people in North Africa and the MIddle East -- Kurds and Berbers and now blacks in Darfur and Christian Copts and Maronites and Assyrians and Chaldeans and others -- their rights, in some cases their linguistic and cultural rights, in others their rights to control or profit from their own natural resources, in still other cases, to enjoy freedom from Arab poolitical masters -- and those Arabs have denied these peoples the right to speak their own non-Arab languages (see the case of the Berbers), retain their own culture, have even mass-murdered them in the Sudan and Iraq, with the other Arabs looking on, openly or silently supporting them, and blocking all attempts to sto the murder.
And those same Arabs, with their 22 states, have also been the beneficiaries of unmerited wealth, having nothing to do with their own efforts, their own industry or entrepreneurial flair. The rich Arabs and Muslims have received, for doing absolutely nothing, some ten trillion dollars since 1973 alone, and we all know the arms, and the luxurious palaces, and the call girls, and the yachts, and all the rest of it, that they have spent their money on, including the mosques and madrasas and Da'wa and propaganda on behalf of Islam -- through buying up journalists, creating academic centers, dangling possible contracts before greedy businessmen, and all the rest of it.
And you still wish to tell us you are morally neutral when it comes to Arabs and Jews in that little affair in a dusty sliver of land on the eastern littoral of the Mediterranean? You surely are not the moral idiot you have painted yourself to be. Surely you have not thought this all through. Surely history, including the last millennium or two, or at least back to the beginning of Islam's conquests and subjugations, and the fantastic story of what happened to the Jews, those who remained, and those who made their way out of the Middle East, should make some impression on you.
Assuming you are free of the usual mental pathology that explains so many cases of such "neutrality" in this case, one hopes you reconsider your declaration of "neutrality" -- as unacceptable a position as declaring moral neutrality between the Allies, and Nazi Germany, during World War II.
Posted by: Hugh at November 27, 2007 5:57 PM
My God! Why SHOULDN'T the Jews have a little - bitty - comma in the Mid East?
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/world_maps/muslim_distribution.jpg
Posted by: allat at November 27, 2007 5:58 PM
"You surely are not the moral idiot you have painted yourself to be."
...*sigh* am I talking to a wall here? I thought I just said, "...if someone is going to insult me, please make it creative. "Stupid," "idiot," and "pinko commie troll" and the like are wearing thin." Yet here comes someone calling me--yep--an idiot. Is it too much to ask for a more creative term of disdain?
And no, I'm not a moral idiot. I have no love of jihadists--else I wouldn't be here. Nor am I among those who equate all religions. Islam is worse than other faiths--period. Anyone who thinks I believe otherwise may do well to direct insults at themselves. My argument was that both sides have blood on their hands, and that both sides have conducted themselves like people usually do in conflicts--as children. ...well, what can I do. Jihadists would call me a Zionist, and Zionists would probably accuse me of being a jihadists. Can't please them all.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 27, 2007 6:02 PM
RoobartSbunsar -
I have always found your nom de plume offensive.
Now your postings are beginning to be offensive too.
at November 27, 2007 6:07 PM
"RoobartSbunsar -
I have always found your nom de plume offensive.
Now your postings are beginning to be offensive too."
So what?
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 27, 2007 6:09 PM
I've said it before (many times) and I'll say it again:
RoobartSbunsar is an assclown.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 27, 2007 6:09 PM
"RoobartSbunsar is an assclown."
Finally--someone who knows how to insult! Thank you, I appreciate that. I was growing tired of the usual barbs. Some creativity is always good.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 27, 2007 6:11 PM
Watchers-
RoobartSbunsar is a juvenile nitwit who ruins a lot of posts with his inanane and jejune "I know you are but what am I?" posts.
C'mon guys, ignore that assclown. I knew the moment I saw his moniker that he's an ignorant fool. Everytime he posts, he confirms my conclusion.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 27, 2007 6:14 PM
"Watchers-
RoobartSbunsar is a juvenile nitwit who ruins a lot of posts with his inanane and jejune "I know you are but what am I?" posts.
C'mon guys, ignore that assclown. I knew the moment I saw his moniker that he's an ignorant fool. Everytime he posts, he confirms my conclusion."
How very mature. With each post, you dig yourself into a deeper hole, my teenage friend.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 27, 2007 6:16 PM
RoobartSbunsar
All countries have blood on their hands - some just have more than others.
Israel would have a lot less if her idiot neighbors left her alone.
They won't.The caliphate must prevail. Israel is an embarrassment to them. None of them have achieved a damn thing without their oil.
But you already knew that.
at November 27, 2007 6:17 PM
Mods? Mods??
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 27, 2007 6:18 PM
"Mods? Mods??"
No need--I don't mind being insulted. Really. I'm not one of those liberals who cries for censorship every time someone insults them. I'd be a hypocrite if I did that.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 27, 2007 6:20 PM
Notice that Sbunsar can't answer Special Guest's simple question. As for Hugh Fitzgerald's eloquent response to that moron, well...it went straight over his head.
@Sbunsar
Your mom's calling. She says, "Turn off the computer and do your homework!"
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 27, 2007 6:23 PM
Let's try an alternative, truthful translation of the first half of that final paragraph, shall we?
As written: "The Palestinians believe Israel is not ready for total peace":
Translation: " The so-called ‘Palestinians’, namely, Arab Muslim standover men, think the Jews of Israel, having up til now refused to become Muslims, are also not yet willing to submit to the misery and near-slavery of dhimmitude under an Arab Muslim despotism". There. The truth in plain language.
Total peace. What a wonderfully Orwellian term.
It is far more true of the Empire of Islam, than it ever was of the Romans, that "they make a desolation and call it 'peace'".
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 27, 2007 6:31 PM
"None of them have achieved a damn thing without their oil."
They haven't achieved much WITH the oil, either.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 27, 2007 6:31 PM
...and just to end the day on a more upbeat note: here's a reminder that not all creatures under the sun are perpetually tearing at each other's throats--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0acPwAV6L08&feature=related
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 27, 2007 6:35 PM
Stop it! Stop it! Leave the person, -RoobartSbunsar, alone.
There's no need to insult him/her. Whoever it is, has a right to his own opinion.
It's called the Right of Free Speech!
Let's not go the way of the islamics here, eh?here.
Posted by: allat at November 27, 2007 6:49 PM
RoobartSbunsar said
Weapons-makers and anyone and everyone who manufactures anything even remotely related to hostilities profits obscenely.
Don't you suppose that those Israelis who manufacture "anything even remotely related to hostilities" (like what? clothes? food? cars? binoculars? radios? footwear? cookwear? sleeping bags?) could just as easily be manufacturing anything's that are not even remotely related to hostilities? Don't you suppose that, if in some fairyland world the "Palestinians" agreed to accept Israel's existence and live in peace with her, those manufacturers could think up a trinket or two that needed building, that was not required for the self-preservation of their nation? Or, if you won't grant that much to the ingenuity of the Israelis, could you not admit that those manufacturers would at least prefer to live in a safer more stable country building weapons for other conflicts where Muslims are trying to destroy the native culture and replace it lock, stock, and barrel with Arab supremecist culture? For example, the aforementioned Thailand, Russia, Serbia, Somalia, Philippines, Sudan, and France?
There is no moral equivalence between the old tenants who built hothouses in Gush Katif and raised a flourishing crop of vegetables in the former arid desert, and the new tenants who ripped those hothouses down to use as parts for Katyusha rockets to fire at civilians. One raised, the other razed. They may be homonyms, but they are not morally equivalent.
On a personal note, some people have made personal attacks on you. Please note that I didn't say you are stupid, I said that the earlier posting is stupid. It is. And honestly, for me, offensive.
I don't know anything about you as a person. I don't know if you honestly believe the things you say here. I don't know what your intentions are in writing them. I can only respond to the ideas you proffer.
Posted by: special_guest at November 27, 2007 6:57 PM
They haven't achieved much WITH the oil, either.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar
What they have achieved is infiltrating the entire west with their backward teachings and forcing these on the local population.
They are buying up pieces of the west bit by bit with their money, eg stock exchanges, banks, media etc etc.
Contributions the the furthering of humanity are zilch. Contributions to the diminution of humanity are enormous.
"Homicide bomber" must be the only thing they have come up with recently.
at November 27, 2007 6:57 PM
"On a personal note, some people have made personal attacks on you. Please note that I didn't say you are stupid, I said that the earlier posting is stupid. It is. And honestly, for me, offensive."
At least you didn't call me an anti-Semite. I've been called that--and much worse--at times when I said anything even remotely critical of Israel.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 27, 2007 7:11 PM
""Homicide bomber" must be the only thing they have come up with recently."
...well, that and Islamic Rage Boy. Speaking of which, he hasn't made an appearance recently. Hope he's well.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 27, 2007 7:12 PM
RoobartSbunsar said
At least you didn't call me an anti-Semite. I've been called that--and much worse--at times when I said anything even remotely critical of Israel.
And were you able, on those occasions, to back up whatever statements you made that caused others to think you anti-Semitic? Were you able to give some sort of evidence to defend your beliefs?
Or did you simply make self-effacing responses that were unrelated to the topic at hand?
Posted by: special_guest at November 27, 2007 7:15 PM
Hugh. Bravo. Bravissimo. I agree with every word you wrote. I am jumping up and down and stamping and whistling.
At this juncture, I don't think anyone will grudge some bandwidth for a re-posting of Oriana Fallaci's magnificent "I Stand With the Jews" (thanks to m goldberg who posted it at this very site on March 16 2006). Can you imagine what La Fallaci would be saying about this conference? She would be holding Ehud Olmert's feet to the fire. She would find a step-ladder and interview President Bush - oh, she would interview him! And I hate to think what she would have done to the Arab leaders, all those oily smilers with the knives under their cloaks. I hope the Lord sends her angry spirit to hiss and spit in their ears, and haunt their dreams every night, and scare seven kinds of hell out of them.
In the absence of La Fallaci, perhaps someone, some Italo-American, at the pro-israel protests in Annapolis, could consider declaiming her words in Italian and in English - with, perhaps, one or two updates to fit it for the occasion (I have suggested a few such, in square brackets in text - Hugh might have one or two ideas). Oh for a muse of fire!
Thursday, April 25, 2002?Columnist Oriana Fallaci:
On Jew-Hatred in Europe
[Originally published in Italian in the Panorama magazine , April 17, 2002 ]
“I find it shameful that in Italy there should be a procession of individuals dressed as suicide bombers who spew vile abuse at Israel,?hold up photographs of Israeli leaders on whose foreheads they have drawn?the swastika, incite people to hate the Jews.
And who, in order to see Jews once again in the extermination camps, in the gas chambers, in the ovens of Dachau and Mauthausen and Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen et cetera, would sell their own mother to a harem."
"I find it shameful that the Catholic Church should permit a bishop, one with lodgings in the Vatican no less, a saintly man who was found in Jerusalem with an arsenal of arms and explosives hidden in the secret compartments of his sacred Mercedes, to participate in that procession and plant himself in?front of a microphone to thank in the name of God the suicide bombers who massacre the Jews in pizzerias and supermarkets. To call them "martyrs who go to their deaths as to a party."
"I find it shameful that in France, the France of Liberty-Equality-?Fraternity, they burn synagogues, terrorize Jews, profane their cemeteries.
"I find it shameful that the youth of Holland and Germany and Denmark flaunt the kaffiah just as Mussolini's avant garde used to flaunt the club and the fascist badge.
"I find it shameful that in nearly all the universities of Europe Palestinian students sponsor and nurture anti-Semitism. That in Sweden they asked that the Nobel Peace Prize given to Shimon Peres in 1994 be taken back and conferred on the dove with the olive branch in his mouth, that is on Arafat.
"I find it shameful that the distinguished members of the Committee, a Committee that (it would appear) rewards political color rather than merit, should take this request into consideration and even respond to it.
In hell the Nobel Prize honors he who does not receive it.
"I find it shameful (we're back in Italy) that state-run television stations contribute to the resurgent anti-Semitism, crying only over Palestinian deaths ['Palestinian' Arab Muslim] while playing down Israeli [Jewish] deaths, glossing over them in unwilling?tones.
"I find it shameful that in their debates they host with much?deference the scoundrels with turban or kaffiah who yesterday sang hymns to the slaughter at New York and today sing hymns to the slaughters at Jerusalem, at Haifa, at Netanya, at Tel Aviv.
"I find it shameful that the press does the same, that it is indignant because Israeli tanks surround the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, that it is not indignant because inside that same church two hundred Palestinian [Arab Muslim]terrorists well armed with machine guns and munitions and explosives (among them are various leaders of Hamas and Al-Aqsa) are not unwelcome guests of the monks (who then accept bottles of mineral water and jars of honey from the soldiers of those tanks).
"I find it shameful that, in giving the number of Israelis killed since the beginning of the Second Intifada (four hundred twelve), a noted daily newspaper found it appropriate to underline in capital letters that more people are killed in their traffic accidents. (Six hundred a year).
"I find it shameful that the Roman Observer, the newspaper of the Pope- -a Pope who not long ago left in the Wailing Wall a letter of apology for the Jews--accuses of extermination a people who were exterminated in the millions by Christians. By Europeans.
(AND NOW, THIS BIT SHOULD BE SHOUTED FROM EVERY ROOFTOP IN ANNAPOLIS]
"I find it shameful that this newspaper [that the Muslim world and its deluded fellow-travellers and vicious enablers] denies to the survivors of that people (survivors who still have numbers tattooed on their arms) the right to react, to defend themselves, to not be exterminated again.
"I find it shameful that in the name of Jesus Christ (a Jew without whom they would all be unemployed), the priests of our parishes or Social Centers or whatever they are flirt with the assassins of those in Jerusalem who cannot go to eat a pizza or buy some eggs without being blown up.
"I find it shameful that they are on the side of the very ones who?inaugurated terrorism [who re-instated the Jihad razzias] killing us on airplanes, in airports, at the Olympics, and who today entertain themselves by killing western journalists.?By shooting them, abducting them, cutting their throats, decapitating them.
?"(There's someone in Italy who, since the appearance of Anger and Pride, would like to do the same to me. Citing verses of the Koran he exhorts his "brothers" in the mosques and the Islamic Community to chastise me in the name of Allah. To kill me. Or rather to die with me. Since he's someone who?speaks English well, I'll respond to him in English: "Fuck you.")
"I find it shameful that almost all of the left, the left that twenty years ago permitted one of its union processionals to deposit a?coffin (as a Mafioso warning) in front of the synagogue of Rome, forgets the contribution made by the Jews to the fight against?fascism. Made by Carlo and Nello Rossini, for example, by Leone Ginzburg, by Umberto Terracini, by Leo Valiani, by Emilio Sereni, by women like my friend Anna Maria Enriques Agnoletti who was shot at Florence on June 12, 1944, by seventy-five of the three-hundred- thirty-five people killed at the Fosse Ardeatine, by the infinite others killed under torture or in combat or before firing squads. (The companions, the teachers, of my infancy and my?youth.)
"I find it shameful that in part through the fault of the left--or rather, primarily through the fault of the left (think of the left that inaugurates its congresses applauding the representative of the PLO, leader in Italy of the Palestinians [the so-called 'Palestinian' Arab Muslims] who want the destruction of?Israel)- Jews in Italian cities are once again afraid. And in French cities [and English cities]and Dutch cities and Danish cities and German cities [and Canadian cities] it is the same.
"I find it shameful that Jews tremble at the passage of the scoundrels dressed like suicide bombers just as they trembled during Krystallnacht, the night in which Hitler gave free rein to the Hunt of the Jews.
"I find it shameful that in obedience to the stupid, vile, dishonest, and for them extremely advantageous fashion of Political Correctness the usual?opportunists--or better the usual parasites--exploit the word Peace.
"That in the name of the word Peace, by now more debauched than the words Love and Humanity, they absolve one side alone of its hate and bestiality.
"That in the name of a pacifism (read conformism) delegated to the singing crickets and buffoons who used to lick Pol Pot's feet they incite people who are confused or ingenuous or intimidated. Trick them, corrupt them, carry them back a half century to the time of the yellow star on the coat. These?charlatans who care about the Palestinians as much as I care about the charlatans. That is not at all.
"I find it shameful that many Italians and many Europeans have chosen [chose] as their standard-bearer the gentleman (or so it is polite to say) Arafat. This nonentity who thanks to the money of the Saudi Royal Family plays [played] the Mussolini ad perpetuum and in his megalomania believes [believed] he will [would] pass into History as the George Washington of Palestine.
This ungrammatical wretch who when I interviewed him was unable even to put together a complete sentence,?to make articulate conversation. So that to put it all together, write it, publish it, cost me a tremendous effort and I concluded that compared to him even Ghaddafi sounds like Leonardo da Vinci.
"This false warrior who always goes [went] around in uniform like Pinochet, never putting on civilian garb, and?yet despite this [has] never participated in a battle. War is something he sends, has always sent, [he sent, always sent] others to do for him. That is, the poor souls who?believe [believed] in him. This pompous incompetent who playing the part of Head of State caused the failure of the Camp David negotiations, Clinton's mediation. No-no-I-want-Jerusalem-all-to-myself.
"This eternal liar who has [had] a flash of sincerity only when (in private) he denies [denied] Israel's right to exist,?and who as I say in my book contradicts [contradicted] himself every five minutes. He always plays [played] the double-cross, lies [lied] even if you ask him what time it is, so?that you can [could] never trust him. Never! With him [With those like him] you will always wind up?systematically betrayed.
"This eternal terrorist who knows [knew] only how to be a terrorist (while keeping himself safe) and who during the Seventies, that is when I interviewed him, even trained the terrorists of Baader-Meinhof. With?them, children ten years of age. Poor children. (Now he trains [they train] them to become suicide bombers. A hundred baby suicide bombers are in the works: a hundred!). This weathercock who keeps [kept] his wife at Paris, served and revered?like a queen, and keeps [kept] his people down in the shit. He takes [took] them out of the shit only to send them to die, to kill and to die, like the eighteen-year-old girls who in order to earn equality with men have to strap on explosives and disintegrate with their victims.
"And yet many Italians love him [loved him], yes. Just like they loved Mussolini. And many other Europeans do [did]?the same. [And they love the despicable deceivers who succeeded him].
"I find it shameful and see in all this the rise of a new fascism, a new Nazism. A fascism, a nazism, that much more grim and revolting because it is conducted and nourished by those who hypocritically pose as do-gooders, progressives, communists, pacifists, Catholics or rather Christians, and who have the gall to label a warmonger anyone like me who screams the truth.?I see it, yes, and I say the following. I have never been tender with the tragic and Shakespearean figure Sharon. ("I know you've come to add another scalp to your necklace," he murmured almost with sadness when I went to interview him in 1982.)
"I have often had disagreements with the Israelis,?ugly ones, and in the past I have defended the Palestinians a great deal.?Maybe more than they deserved.
"But I stand with Israel, I stand with the Jews. I stand just as I stood as a young girl during the time when I fought with them, and when the Anna Marias were shot.
(SHOUT THE NEXT BIT FROM THE ROOFTOPS)
"I defend their right to exist, to defend themselves, to not let?themselves be exterminated a second time.
"And disgusted by the anti-Semitism of many Italians, of many Europeans, [add: even of many Americans, many Australians, many Canadians] I am ashamed of this shame that dishonors my Country and Europe [add: and the whole world]. At best, it is not a community of States, but a pit of Pontius Pilates.
"And even if all the inhabitants of this planet?were to think otherwise, I would continue to think so”.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 27, 2007 7:25 PM
"Homicide bomber" must be the only thing they have come up with recently.
We really need to ask ourselves, is there anything inherently valuable in a person, or worse, a whole society, that has no personal survival mechanism? How would a person like this, with no respect for their own life, have any respect for mine? Could I live peacefully next door to this person, knowing that when the wild urge to commit jihad strikes them, they will be coming after me next? And since my Bible plainly states that murder is against everything I believe in and their Qu'ran plainly states that murdering others and murdering one's self is an integral part of what they believe in, why is there such a disconnect with those who will not see, telling me and mine that I'm bad and wrong for being irritated by this?
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 27, 2007 7:26 PM
Israel stands alone in the middle east as an oasis of freedom and prosperity in a desert of tyranny and stagnation.
It's important to know that if Israel is destroyed, then the enemies of freedom who are attacking her will turn their full attention to the United States, so we cannot let this happen.
I stand for Israel! I support Israel!!!
Posted by: champ at November 27, 2007 7:34 PM
Just two comments here after reading the posts above: 1) Anyone who thinks that the Muslim world would settle for an Israel that was even merely one square mile is indeed fooling himself. The Muslim world wants no Israel, all the more so because it was once part of the dar-al-Islam and because Jews are reviled by Islam (though not necessarily by all Muslims----yet again we have the situation where some Muslims are OK while Islam never is). 2) If Roobart Sbunsar was in charge of Israel or America or all of the West, we would lose Israel or America or all of the West.
Posted by: Wellington at November 27, 2007 7:43 PM
RoobartSbunsar
The enemy of my enemy is my friend....
You see by following this motto America will have many friends and only one real enemy.
at November 27, 2007 7:49 PM
RoobartSbunsar
Or another words Israel is the enemy of my enemy which is good enough for me.
at November 27, 2007 7:52 PM
"There were also no "Israelis" as such until Israel was officially created."
by Roobart
The Israelites "as such" had their own state more than 2000 years ago. "Israeli" is not an artificial construct. The Jewish people lived on that land before they were driven off it. It's not as if they magically appeared in 1948.
Posted by: PMK at November 27, 2007 7:54 PM
allat -- the link you provided in one of your above posts showing the map of the middle east is very telling of who the true land whores are, and it isn't Israel!
Posted by: champ at November 27, 2007 7:58 PM
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=5ADD2CD9-BDD7-4488-8D2E-77357B1CB326
Posted by: interestinconundrum at November 27, 2007 9:36 PM
I have no positive feelings for "palestinians".
The hi-jacking of airliners, killing innocent people in pizza parlors, shooting babies in their carseats....
Always bellyaching. The women want their children to blow themselves to pieces as long as they kill a Jew or infidel. There is just something missing in those people. That is not from Robert Spenser or Hugh Fitzgerald, it is my statement.
at November 27, 2007 9:41 PM
A case for Robert Spencer:
The Guardian, long a forum for far left wackjobs and Muhammedan taqiyya doctors, features Ed Husain who takes on Ali Hirsi and Robert Spencer and dumps another steaming pile of taqiyya our way:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ed_husain/2007/11/stop_supporting_bin_laden_geor.html
Check this out:
a) there is no verse in the Qur’an that calls for the killing of apostates;
b) the Prophet Mohammed did not kill several people who freely left Islam;
c) Sufyan al-Thawri, a second-generation Muslim, clearly stated that ex-Muslims should be free to exercise their will;
d) the four schools of Muslim jurisprudential thought that endorsed the killing of apostates did so on grounds of treason and sedition, not theology;
e) the 1843-44 Ottoman reforms enshrined the right of Muslims to accept other religions without state punishment.
Stoning, of course, is just some kind of 'ancient ruling' that has no relevance in today's Islam, he tells us like the Bunglawala before him. But who changed the 'immutable Koran' then?
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/11/27/pali-arabs-defend-their-readiness-for-statehood/
at November 27, 2007 9:42 PM
Spencer - (I tried to correct that, but I was too late.)
Posted by: interestinconundrum at November 27, 2007 9:43 PM
JW community,
Honestly, why do you guys bother engaging "RoobartSpunsar", AKA "GetBornAgain", or GBA as I familiarly referred to the chap in the past.
Besides the obvious fact that he overposts, his position is clear. He is a liberal, studying in England, with Tripp as one of his professors, and disagrees with everything professed here, with the noted exception that he despises Islam and the Islamists, like the lot here.
He is here to pass time to serve his own ego, probably out of boredom. Whatever.
He IS the poster formerly known as GetBornAgain. I have proven that in the recent past. He also referred to Giuliani as a racist, just because. Since his banning he has been behaving himself as of late, at least within the parameters of required conduct to continue with posting privilages here at this site, but why bother?
He is the eternal devil's advocate, from anything to conservatism to McCarthy. So be it. He is more self-indulgent than Naseem, when he/she/it chooses to comment here.
Once again, as painstaking as it is, I present "Roobart", AKA GBA, in all his intellectual glory below:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017928.php#comments
Seriously, why bother?
Posted by: awake at November 27, 2007 9:57 PM
So the Palestinians don't think Israel is "ready" for peace. Isn't that funny.
Muslims around the world aren't about to let ANY non-Muslims live in peace anywhere else either. Look at France these days. Or Thailand. Or Ethiopia. Or Russia. Or India. Or Lebanon. Or Nigeria. Or Serbia.
This must have something to do with that pesky old traditional ideology of Islam's that consigns non-Muslims to the "House of War."
In a thousand years from now, the Muslims won't believe that Israel is 'ready" for peace either. Israel will still be part of the House of War then, too.
Posted by: pythagoras at November 27, 2007 10:28 PM
In a thousand years from now, the Muslims won't believe that Israel is 'ready" for peace either. Israel will still be part of the House of War then, too.
Posted by: pythagoras at November 27, 2007 10:28 PM
Unless of course, Israel ceases to exist. Then all remaining Jews worldwide will be perfectly eligible for Dhimmitude.
Posted by: awake at November 27, 2007 10:42 PM
"Seriously, why bother?"
Not sure, really. I called for the mods because the thread was hijacked and unbecoming of Jihadwatch.
Personally though, I would like him to answer, what to him would be hypothetical, but to most of us the reality, the following: WHAT IF (on his part, for the sake of discussion), WHAT IF this is not merely some silly tussle between sibling children requiring only parental interdiction and stricter play rules, but WHAT IF this is wholly, completely insoluble, and that left to their own devices, they clearly would, in fact, fight eternally until the extermination of the other, would you see any merit to advancing an end by choosing a side? If so, which side would you choose, and why? If not, please explain why not, and if relevant, how you see that local conflict as being irrelevant to your own situation.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 27, 2007 10:55 PM
CC,
I hope I have not mistaken the intent of your post. I personally have chosen a side, for better or for worse. The prospect of Israeli Palestinian peace is a pipe-dream based on the current geography and the inherent tenets of Islam, but you already know that.
I was merely pointing out that we should no longer bother responding to "roobart" or "GBA", based on the link I provided.
That is of course, until he arrives under a new moniker AGAIN, which is all but certain to occur.
Regards.
Posted by: awake at November 27, 2007 11:22 PM
I've certainly chosen a side, as well. For me, it is absolutely an insoluble situation, with no possible "peace". There is only one side with which I could feel permanently at peace, and that is Israel. (Disclaimer: I am not a Zionist, dispensationalist, etc.)
Unfortunately, most of the world leaders currently see Israel as expendable. This current charade in Annapolis will hopefully be remembered as a vile, nauseating capitulation and sell-out. "Hopefully" meaning the hope that this won't lead to the most protracted, surging, successful Islamization the world has seen and that there will still BE infidels left to remember it in context.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 27, 2007 11:40 PM
Look at the issues, look at the challanges, look at the candidates and you will see that Tom Tancredo, in all his limitations, is more sincere honest and patriotic that other candidates combined. He sounds controvercial, because he does not believe in souinding :nice". Tom Tancredo does not belive in saying what Americans want to hear. He is not a smooth-talker, not panderer of corrupt interests. He stamnds more for common American than any other candidate. Besides omn national security like illegal immigration and Islamic terror, Tom's stand is clear and firm. So before it is too late, let us change the "nice" pc crap and bring a patriotic American to lead America: http://www.teamtancredo.typepad.com
Posted by: Alert at November 27, 2007 11:59 PM
Romney doesn’t back down to pushy Muslim (despite CBS headline):
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/27/politics/main3544666.shtml
at November 28, 2007 12:22 AM
awake -- that thread was a doozy, and you certainly have Roobart pegged as the notorious GBA, because there's no mistaking those arrogant and soulless comments. Good work in exposing his true identity.
Posted by: champ at November 28, 2007 12:31 AM
Stop wasting my time
You know what I want
You know what I need
Or maybe you don't
Do I have to come right
Flat out and tell you everything?
Gimme some money
"We've been talking about a Marshall Plan for the suburbs since the early 1990s," said Adil Jazouli, a sociologist who focuses on the suburbs. "We don't need poetry. We don't need reflection. We need money."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/27/europe/riots.php#end_copy
at November 28, 2007 12:38 AM
Palestinian is, itself in two states right now, how can a peace conference take place between two sides, when there are really three?
Should not the peoples choice be there, or do we
forget who the people (Palestinians) selected?
If Bush is true to his words, and said support of Democratic elections, should all not be there?
This current faction break must be solved before the first steps can even be taken.
at November 28, 2007 1:08 AM
Alert, here's my deal: if you conservatives can give Tancredo the nomination, he'll have my vote in the general election.
Posted by: special_guest at November 28, 2007 2:09 AM
Altho' it's possible to register an almost infinite number of objections to this dreadful and absurd "peace" conference, the MAIN one is it's all about peace -- and not justice or liberty. But "peace" without justice or liberty is meaningless and worthless, not to mention undesirable and impossible. Any conference dedicated to obtaining freedom for all in the Middle East, or to rendering full justice to all the parties involved, would look COMPLETELY different.
Posted by: Ky'Zan' at November 28, 2007 3:01 AM
Good God;
Mara Liaison is wearing a purple sportscoat and a grey shirt. Hi, I’m Tom Kreuze, I’ve got free powered-wheelchairs for you. The window is maybe five years. Then Europe.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=11101&storeId=10001&productId=27806&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=26807&isFirearm=Y
at November 28, 2007 3:20 AM
Oh sure, that's why they left Gaza, and armed the PA, and give free medical care to Palestinian Arabs, and have joint peace projects, and are in a suicidal tizzy over whether Arabs and Palestinians are being treated well enough in Israel itself, and why Palestinians are falling over themselves to gain entry into and live in Israel, and take the crap of the Waqf at the Temple Mount, and allow Arab/Muslim parliamentarians etc etc
because THEY'RE not ready for peace...Good thing that's been cleared up then!
Posted by: carpediadem at November 28, 2007 3:41 AM
RoobartSbunsar,
you have adopted the "a plague on both your houses" response. That doesn't make you stupid, it defines you as lazy, uncommitted to the argument, and so far defines you as not having explored the issues and background of the dispute about ancient Israel.
Heard of the Israelites? The ancient counterpart to modern Israelis - yes, Israel existed in the past, way before Hadrian named the area Palestine to make the world forget Israel existed.
It's worked, it seems, with you.
Posted by: carpediadem at November 28, 2007 3:50 AM
By the way, I was being SARCASTIC! Becasue articles like that PISS ME OFF!
*tantrum over*
at November 28, 2007 4:09 AM
"The Palestinians believe Israel is not ready for total peace"
I think they mean Israel isn't ready for the total peace of the grave.
Posted by: ausinfidel at November 28, 2007 4:48 AM
"The Guardian, long a forum for far left wackjobs and Muhammedan taqiyya doctors"
It's not getting any better, either. I've pretty much stopped reading The Guardian altogether.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 28, 2007 5:06 AM
Guess it's the illustrious British tabloids for me.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 28, 2007 5:07 AM
(Amy Winehouse is considered juicier fair than jihad, apparently)
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 28, 2007 5:13 AM
Assalamau Laikum all,
I was going to stay out of this one but statemants like "Naseem IS stupid, but the two of you are in a dead heat for first place" cannot remain unchallenged.
Having a different viewpoint than you does NOT make me stupid....just well.... different.
What WAS stupid was to make an Israel in the middle of Islamic heartlands. By doing this the kaffur (and the UN is essentially Kaffur...regardless of the kind of decisions they made) paved the way for an endless war....the same was done vis India-Pak.
There are two reasons for this, particularily with the kaffur thinking after winning out at the end of WWII...
1) Well, we are not there anymore...let them sort it out.
2) If there a little war...we will help and put the arab street down.
Only things didn't work that way out.... increasingly Israel is facing an ever increasing challenge from a robust "enemy" who is becoming more sophisticated, better trained, better equipped and clever tactics.
It's "arms" are manufactured in the middle of population centers which the Israelis cannot destroy....increasingly this "enemy" has a big brother in Iran who is close to becomiing nucleur, but most importantly the "enemy" has Allah SWT....each and every soldier KNOWS where he is going and what the ultimate prize is ...so they can never be defeated...AND they know it.
I think it is in desperation that Israel is going to the negotiation table...it's population does want peace...but peace means different things to different peoples and they have different prizes in mind for "peace".
It was the kaffur that sealed Israel's fate in 1948...now we are going through the motions.
I am sorry that you had to hear that from Naseem...and you will again accuse me of "being stupid"....but I am one muslima in Lahore...and have nothing to do with the conflict....only I can guide you for what you consider to be the "bitter truth".....prepare for Islam.
Know that the 1st bit of everything is hard...like taking a cold shower....the 1st few moments are hard...then all settles down....remember this important lesson.
at November 28, 2007 5:33 AM
(*fare. Sorry for the multiple posts, people)
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 28, 2007 5:34 AM
Question: Has anyone ever heard Bush or Rice directly address Israeli security fears by mentioning the carnage after Oslo? If not, I don't see how they can have enough credibility with the Israeli public to bring about a consensus for further concessions.
at November 28, 2007 6:18 AM
Naseem go back to sleep. If you have opinions save them for your own poor excuse for a country...also created.
Posted by: Aunt Bea at November 28, 2007 8:08 AM
Re: "The Palestinians believe Israel is not ready for total peace"
What they really mean is that "The Palestinians believe Israel is not ready for total anhilation".
How come the big Arab landowners sold so much real estate to the Zionists and then whipped up average Arabs to get back the land? In any case, I'm sure they would like Tel Aviv (which was sand dunes) back because it is now improved property. (By the way, since "Palestinians" and other Arabs are concerned about aparthied states, they will be addressing that issue re Saudi-A-Gas-Station and the guest workers there. Arabs abuse minorities wherever they are in the majority. They are the "best people" according to themselves. I'm sure they want to do something to end that racist delusion.)
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.israelnewsguide.com/images/tel_aviv.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.israelnewsguide.com/tel-aviv-israel.html&h=266&w=400&sz=51&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=qc7iP0FjAb0KLM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtel%2Baviv,%2Bsand%2Bdunes%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DGGLJ,GGLJ:2007-37,GGLJ:en%26sa%3DN
Posted by: Frank at November 28, 2007 8:17 AM
The reason the islamics hate the Jews so much - with a royal hate, is that the Jews are "the one that got away." There was, and is nothing - NOTHING - the islamics can do to the Jews, - threats - insults - tax - torture - run them over - kill them - take the women - that will make the Jews convert to islam.
I marvel at them. THese Jews - they STUBBORN people. STRRROONG.
Every one else converted, except the Jews.
That's why the islamics hate them so much.
However, apart from them, it's a non-islamic country being there in the first place - a thorn in the side. A little country that "ruins" the look of the geographic lawn.
Posted by: allat at November 28, 2007 10:32 AM
STUPID COMMENT ALERT: "What WAS stupid was to make an Israel in the middle of Islamic heartlands."
>
**"MISCONCEPTION #1 - JEWS ARE AN IMPERIALISTIC FOREIGN NATION WITH NO CONNECTION TO THE LAND"**
"Many people believe that the situation in Israel is one of a foreign nation imposing its will on the local, native population. The Jews, having no connection to the land itself, arrived in the last 100 years, and quickly began to violently take land from the native Arabs who had been there forever. Clearly though, when one looks at history, this conception is proven false. Jews have had an intensely strong connection to the Land of Israel for an even longer time period than the Arabs themselves."
Additionally....
"Jews first came to the land of Israel as a nation, in the year 1272 BCE. This dates back 1800-1900 years before Islam even began! For the next 13 centuries, Jewish Kings and prophets changed the world spiritually and culturally. Finally, the Jews were exiled by the Romans (their second exile) from being an autonomous ruling kingdom in Israel in the year 70 CE. This means that 600 years before Islam was even created - Jews were already yearning to come back to their land! Thus, it is impossible to begin looking in the year 638 CE to understand what's happening in the Middle East, since there is a rich Jewish history much before."
The only thing bitter here and the lies being told about the Jews. Guess the Arabs/Muslims will just have to accept their right to exist, not the other way around.
I stand for Israel!! And always will!!!
Posted by: champ at November 28, 2007 12:03 PM
Part II:
"A big misconception is that in the year 70 CE Jews were exiled from Israel, and then 2,000 years later in 1948, 600,000 Jews came flooding back. In truth though, Jews have had a continuous presence in their land since their exile by the Romans.
In the year 70 CE, after living in Israel for over 1000 years, the vast majority of Jews were exiled, but not all of them. Going through the 2000 years since the exile, ample evidence shows Jewish communities continuously present. There are two famous Jewish works, the Mishna and the Jerusalem Talmud, which were both written in the land of Israel.
When the crusaders came in the 11th century the Jews were nearly the majority in Jerusalem. At that time they didn't live in the Jewish quarter of today, but instead by the Damascus gate, which is presently the Moslem quarter. The first crusade came, rounded up all the Jews, gathering them into a building and burned them all alive. This destroyed almost the entire Jewish population in Jerusalem. If this catastrophe wouldn't have happened, one could assume that the Jews would have become the majority of the population. Even after the crusades, Jews returned to their homeland. The famous Rabbi Nachmanadies, the Ramban, brought a delegation here about a century after the Crusades.
Jewish presence in Israel continued to grow until by the 1850s, Jews were again the majority in Jerusalem. Thus, not only are there spiritual ties that connected Jews in exile all over the world to their homeland, but Jews were actually living there the whole time."
Posted by: champ at November 28, 2007 12:35 PM
""Jews first came to the land of Israel as a nation, in the year 1272 BCE. This dates back 1800-1900 years before Islam even began!""
...so how far back do we go? Should we give America back to its native inhabitants? Should we give Iberia back to the Visigoths?
Where do we draw the line?
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 28, 2007 12:59 PM
Nope -- Naseem is in second place now.
Posted by: champ at November 28, 2007 1:27 PM
@Roob - We, we, we...Who's "WE"??? You, my dear fellow, are a pompous ahole.
Posted by: mepeteart at November 28, 2007 1:29 PM
RoobartSbunsar said
Where do we draw the line?
That's all up for negotiation, right? (I know where I would draw it). But the line is not, as the "Palestinians" desire, drawn as an "X" over the Jewish state of Israel. Muslims and Jews and Christians should all have the right to exist somewhere in the Middle East. I wonder which of the parties would not agree with that statement?
Posted by: special_guest at November 28, 2007 1:39 PM
Oh, put a sock in it, people. You KNOW you love me. This forum would be dead without me.
So worship me, ye worms.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 28, 2007 3:03 PM
FYI:
http://mosquewatch.blogspot.com/2007/09/michael-savage-radical-islam.html
And here is the results of someone speaking the truth:
"OFFICEMAX DROPS MICHAEL SAVAGE ADS OVER ANTI-ISLAM BIAS (WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/15/2007) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today announced that OfficeMax, a leading office products retailer, has joined a growing list of companies that have stopped advertising on Michael Savage's nationally-syndicated radio program because of the host's anti-Muslim views."
Please Call OfficeMax As Soon As Possible
www.actforamerica.org
at November 28, 2007 4:12 PM
"The Palestinians believe Israel is not ready for total peace ... "
---------------------------
To be precise: Israel isn't ready to give up and die yet.
An aside to Naseem:
Re your statement "... most importantly the "enemy" has Allah SWT....each and every soldier KNOWS where he is going and what the ultimate prize is ...so they can never be defeated..."
Sweetie, the fact that the Islamists have Allah (and only Allah; no common sense, no compassion, no respect for anyone but themselves, just Allah and a strange predilection for inbreeding) is what actually guarantees that Israel and the West will win out in the coming "clash of cultures". But, yes from your Islamic point of view, hooray for all those who are happy to die knowing they're going to the Great Cat-House in the Sky...
(reminds me of that Norman Greenbaum song:
" When I die and they lay me to rest
Gonna go to the place that's the best
When I lay me down to die
Goin' up to the spirit in the sky "
except of course the Islamic version will be
Goin' up to the Cat-House in the sky " )
at November 28, 2007 4:46 PM
I see some of the comments have been deleted. Thank you.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 28, 2007 5:02 PM
"Bad idea to give the Palestinians their own "country". Now everytime they attack and Israel responds, it could potentially turn into WW 3. Honestly, who see's a positive ending if the Palestinians officially get a state of thier own?" - Posted by: Arbreshe
Exactly for the reason just given, that it is a good idea. Once they have a country and attack another, they’re fair game for total response. Doubt WW 3 would ignite, Iran is the better candidate. Did WW 3 get ignited by either Afghan or Iraq wars? Lots of hot air and posturing bluff, but they do respect force very much and will fall silent once they’re hit hard. The reason the jihadis of Hamas-Hezbollah keep attacking is because they are not a nation, so keep hiding under the banner of victimhood, as “refugees”. Give them a state, and then smack them if they fall out of line, good and hard. Look what happened to Iraq when they hit Kuwait? This Arabs understand.
"The western mind in not conditioned to understand this ideaology/cult way of thinking and living. Seriously, people can't understand what a "jihad" lifestyle is and what it entails, so therefore they dismiss it."
Right again, for obvious reason. We don’t think this way anymore, gave it up about 500 years ago, and some of us gave it up 2000 years ago, right about where the “jihad” lifestyle is rooted today.
at November 28, 2007 5:02 PM
"Exactly for the reason just given, that it is a good idea. Once they have a country and attack another, they’re fair game for total response."
Exactly.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 28, 2007 5:05 PM
"Know that the 1st bit of everything is hard...like taking a cold shower....the 1st few moments are hard...then all settles down....remember this important lesson."
Take a cold shower, Naseem. :) You’re muddled in your thinking.
The Judeo-Christian faith is far more powerful than Mohammed’s superstitions of a crescent-moon-god called Allah. Our culture is superior to yours, in that we can adjust and evolve into a modernity lost on the Islamic world. Israel is our first battle front against your regressive culture of death and war in your ‘religion of peace’ barbarity. But it will not be a physical fight, but a fight of ideas, where we will prevail over your ‘death wish’ to join your bordello in the sky with love and civility. Have you considered abandoning your faith for Christianity? To love your neighbor is a far more powerful message from God than to kill the infidels. You might want to think about it. No hard feelings, you are always welcome to join the modern age, and we will welcome you. Really! :)
at November 28, 2007 5:27 PM
"The Judeo-Christian faith is far more powerful than Mohammed’s superstitions of a crescent-moon-god called Allah."
Don't be so quick to call Mohammed's creed "weak"--it HAS survived for all these centuries, after all. We shouldn't underestimate our enemy.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 28, 2007 5:34 PM
Don't be so quick to call Mohammed's creed "weak"--it HAS survived for all these centuries, after all. We shouldn't underestimate our enemy.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar
Oh yes, I am well aware of Mohammedan success in past centuries when we lived in the dark ages, before information and technology, and before we abolished slavery and became the dominant culture of the world. Theocracies ruled then, after the fall of Roman Empire, and large swatches of the world were taken over by Mohammed’s dark ages from Spain to India. But the times they are a changing. They are in shock that we are not rolling over to their supremacist world domination theology, and will really be in shock when their own younger generations start abandoning Islam in droves. We need a good victory to convince them of how barbarically primitive they really are, and then watch the fun. Not to underestimate the enemy, they are vicious, but don’t underestimate our greatness and power either. I am quite confident we will beat their stinky sandals off. :) Even the PC crowd, clutching their teddy bears, is having fill of their stink.
at November 28, 2007 5:52 PM
RoobartSbunsar said
So worship me, ye worms.
Okay.
But I still don't get how that will convince the Muslims to accept the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East.
Posted by: special_guest at November 28, 2007 6:08 PM
"Don't be so quick to call Mohammed's creed 'weak'--it HAS survived for all these centuries, after all. We shouldn't underestimate our enemy."
Posted by: The LORD of the Worms
Don't be so quick to call "quick".
"Mohammed's creed" IS weak.
It is weak theologically.
It is weak historically.
It is weak scientifically.
It is weak on textual organization, context and perspicuity.
It is weak on originality.
It is weak ethically.
It is weak morally.
It is weak on consonance with enlightened human emotions and conscience.
It is weak on justice, human rights and dignity.
It is weak on the motivation of human creativity and analytical reasoning.
It is weak on inspiring social and societal progress and innovation.
This could go on all night.
Tenacious votaries do not a strong creed make.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 28, 2007 9:03 PM
I see some of the comments have been deleted. Thank you.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 28, 2007 5:02 PM
They have, wait I have to check....phew!!
Not mine, GBA, and that is all that matters. What a relief.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017928.php#comments
Posted by: awake at November 28, 2007 11:46 PM
Re. Jewish presence in eretz Israel, BEFORE the 1850s. I have a few questions to get people thinking.
Where do the Jewish Zeituni and Zenati families come from? How long have they lived in eretz Israel?
Where was the Kabbalah written, and when?
There's the famous Sabbath Hymn by Israel Najara. Anyone care to guess where THAT was written, and when?
Where was the first printing press east of the Bosphorus, and who set it up, and when? Hint. NOT the Muslims. Originally, they didn't want anything to do with such a dangerously revolutionary Infidel invention (they've changed their tune, since).
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 28, 2007 11:51 PM
"Posted by: The LORD of the Worms"
You're damn right!
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 29, 2007 7:01 AM
dumbledoresarmy
I did not know about the "first printing press east of the Bosphorus"! I shall look that up.
Thanks for that, it's an entertaining part of a very bloody history here.
Posted by: carpediadem at November 29, 2007 7:49 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.)