| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
The war against Israel waged by Muslim Arabs and other Muslims who follow the Arab lead is merely a classic Jihad. After the Six-Day War, the Arabs made every effort, because they realized that a military "solution" was not at hand, to repackage their opposition to Israel. They would use the fact of Israel's victory against it. Among the territories that Israel took possession of were two -- Gaza and the "West Bank" -- to which Israel had good, even clear, title according to all the legal and historic (not to mention moral claims) -- which were soon re-presented to the world as the land of a suddenly-invented "Palestinian people," (never mentioned before by any Arab rulers, diplomats, historians, or others), and the careful fabrication continued as part of the so-called "construction-of-the-Palestinian-identity" project, right down to the renaming of a few banal Arab folkdances as "Palestinian" in nature. For the Arabs have always been very clever about manipulating the Western publics, while Israel has endured a political and media elite that takes pride in its absence of guile, its blunt forthrightness, save that the blunt forthrightness of Golda Meir's dismissal of the "Palestinian people" did not continue, and the Israelis became unwitting collaborators in their own propagandistic degringolade.
The Arabs understood, after the colossal defeat of June 1967, that they would need more time, and other strategies, to defeat and then destroy Israel. They realized that they would need the outside world, and particularly the Western powers that had affinities with, and even gave moral and sometimes other kinds of support to Israel, to take the Arab and Muslim side. They worked hard to make sure that those Western powers, little by little, stopped seeing the conflict as what it was, but as something else, in which tiny Israel could be depicted as the o'erweening bully, and the Arab side depicted as the much weaker victims.
Considering that the Arabs alone outnumber the Jews of Israel 60 to one, and that the land in the possession of the Arabs is about 14 million square miles, while Israel in the 1949 armistice lines is about 10,000 square miles, and even with the "West Bank" does not even contain the 14,000 square miles that would make Mighty Israel, Greater Israel, all of one-one-thousandth the size of the Arab-ruled lands (where Berbers, Kurds, Copts, and all other non-Arab or non-Muslim peoples, are treated with contumely, or discrimination, or persecution, or worse), this was a neat trick.
But the Arabs managed it. They began by carefully renaming the Arabs in the territories won by Israel in the Six-Day War as the "Palestinian people," a phrase not used, not once, by any Arab diplomat or leader prior to the Six-Day War. Thus a new "people" was created -- see Zuhair Mohsain's admission to the Dutch newspaper "Trouw" about the propagandistic motivation for the "Palestinian people." But then the Israelis, so desperately eager for peace, failed to respond. They failed utterly to recognize the propagandistic case that was being built, by which the Jihad against the Infidel state of Israel was to be disguised as merely a conflict between two "tiny peoples" (though the Arabs never hide the fact that they consider themselves one people, a people united in language, customs, religion, and all the other outward and inward markers of ethnic identity).
In this scenario, Israel was cast in the role of bullying "occupier." In reality, it was no such thing, for its historic and legal claim to the "West Bank" did not begin with, and was not dependent on, the possession that resulted from the Six-Day War. For Israel's "occupation" of territory deliberately set aside for the Jewish National Home according to the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine could hardly be seen as similar, say, to "Occupied Paris" (to which the Germans had no legitimate claim) or "Occupied Vienna" or "Occupied Berlin" (both cities which the Allies occupied with military forces after the war, but to which they did not have, and did not wish to fabricate, any kind of permanent claim). The same goes, of course, for "Occupied Japan," to which the Americans of course had no claim other than of being military occupier. That is quite different from Israel, which in the Six-Day War came into possession of territory to which it had a claim, and a right -- legal, historic, and moral -- recognized by those who established the Mandate system after World War I.
The Arabs have had a good run, aided and abetted by a series of mediocre Israeli governments, and by media and political elites in Israel largely ignorant of Islam, almost willfully so, and thus blind to the war being waged, for all time, against the state of Israel. Perhaps to allow themselves to understand the nature of Islam, and thus to recognize the endless nature of the war being waged on Israel, has simply been too painful for Israelis to face up to. So instead they -- like the Western Europeans -- simply prefer to deny it all, and thus to end up collaborating with the propaganda put out by their enemies, aiding those enemies to conceal the nature of the war being waged.
But now, it seems, each new killing or attack, in Madrid or London or Mumbai, in Amsterdam or New York, in Washington or New Delhi, in Moscow or Manila, in southern Thailand or in southern Nigeria or in southern Sudan, of Muslims against Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and all others, chips away at that Arab propaganda, and begins to allow us once again to see, revealed, the true nature of the war against Israel. As this war is seen, and seen more clearly, soonest by the keenest, and then afterwards by the less keen, it will be harder and harder for the farce of the "legitimate rights of the 'Palestinian' people" business to be uttered with a straight face. And if Israel can hold on, and can start to see things straight, and help others in Western Europe and North America, by making its own new understanding of things clear, to themselves come to grasp the meaning, and permanent menace, of Islam, then it is just possible that Israel will have a chance. Further appeasement will not and cannot work. Islam is triumphalist. Every victory, anywhere, against any Infidels, only whets, and never sates, Muslim appetites. This needs to be understood. Not after the next concession of tangible assets to the Arabs, but before any more such disastrous concessions, by the likes of the olmerts of this world, are made.
Posted by Hugh at December 14, 2008 12:05 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Islamic Caliphate is a very dangerous idea. Arab muhahideen think that they will rule the caliphate, Pakistani army and ISI want to implement Hamid Gul's idea of ruling the caliphate, and Iranian shiites think they would. And why would Indonesians and malaysians be left behind? This results in a shouting match against Israel. Unfortunately, no country is safe from this very dangerous idea of the caliphate. It is more prevalent in the Islamic world than I had imagined and that most people believe it to be. Terrorism is only a manifestation of that idea. An idea, if not confronted ever, will eventually prevail.
Posted by: Naresh C.![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 14, 2008 12:31 PM
I wish Hugh would take a look at Bret Stephen's article in the September Commentary, "How to Manage Savagery" in which he argues that Islam is heterogeneous and that nationalism may assuage its course. He also ineffectively tries to take down Robert but his effort is laughable.
Posted by: EugeneNow! at December 14, 2008 12:38 PM
HUGH: "They began by carefully renaming the Arabs in the territories won by Israel in the Six-Day War as the "Palestinian people," a phrase not used, not once, by any Arab diplomat or leader prior to the Six-Day War."
WIKIPEDIA on the PLO: "Founded by a meeting of 422 Palestinian national figures in Jerusalem in May 1964 following an earlier decision of the Arab League, its goal was the liberation of Palestine through armed struggle. The original PLO Charter (issued on 28 May 1964) stated that "Palestine with its boundaries that existed at the time of the British mandate is an integral regional unit" "
Posted by: Cornelius at December 14, 2008 12:38 PM
The Arabs don't really want a Palestinian state as that would mean that they would have to recognize Israel's borders. In any case, the main motivation for a state is for protection, and that explains why the Jews were so eager for one, of any size at all, in 1948, since they felt so vulnerable, and why the Arabs rejected one, then and since, because they have never felt vulnerable.
Posted by: jewdog at December 14, 2008 12:56 PM
I am not sure if the poster above is attempting to support, or to take issue, with my remark. In any case, the foundation of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in 1964, has nothing to do with a "people" -- it does not mention a separate "Palestinian people" -- but with land. And indeed, the Muslim effort is always about land, and not really about people at all. Indeed, local Muslims are useful in order to present Jihad, and the claims made on land, in terms that Westerners understand. Thus the Muslims in Pakistan, interested in making Kashmir entirley part of Dar al-Islam, will appear to be solicitous for the "rights" of the Muslims in Kashmir, but anyone of sense understands that the actual "rights" of Muslims, as people, are of little concern in Islam. Islam is a collectivist faith. Individuals, even many individuals, even an entire Muslim population in an area, may be sacrificed for the greater good of Islam. It is perfectly understandable, thus, that the rulers of the Islamic Republic of Iran would be willing to use nuclear weaopngs on Israel, that might also kill not just Jews but all of the Arabs, all of the local "Palestinians" too, as long as that land were no longer in Infidel hands.
Look through the PLO literature in 1964, and see if there is anything about a "Palestinian people." And be careful. Neither the phrase"the Arabs of Palestine" nor "the Palestinian Arabs" are equivalent to the meretricious and devious promotion to be found in the post-1967 phrase, "the Palestinian people," now so dear to the hearts of all those, especially in Western Europe, who never having had a clue, and not wishing to find out, about the meaning, and menace, of Islam, instead keep focussing, with manic intensity, on the need to make Israel surrender its rights, legal, historic,and moral, so that somehow -- they never explain how -- somehow that will make the Muslim threat in the cities of Western Europe, or in southern Sudan or central Nigeria or southern Thailand, or in Mumbai or Delhi, less dangerous. They can't of course, but when has obvious idiocy ever stopped anyone?
Posted by: Hugh at December 14, 2008 1:02 PM
I also quit using the phrase "The Holy Land" and I get suspicious of Arabs who use it, be they Christian or Muslim, as it is a cover for a Judenrein "Holy Land."
Posted by: Jewel Atkins at December 14, 2008 1:21 PM
The Muslims are quick to make use of that phrase the "Holy Land" to trick Christians in the West out of their money. It is horrifying for me to realize that one of my own relatives, a devout Catholic, used to receive imploring letters from, and used to respond with generous checks to, the Holy Land Foundation, which has now been exposed for the terrorist front it always was, when she so trustingly and naively sent them money. I'd like to get that money back. I could use it.
Posted by: Hugh at December 14, 2008 1:28 PM
While terrorist attacks committed in the name of allah (the imaginary) might help Americans see things straight, as Hugh suggested in the closing paragraph of his article, Eurabian leaders and Eurocrats will do what they can to prevent Western Europeans to see things for what they truly are.
Those islamophiles will probably keep ordering European media to continue their meretricious cover-up of why islam is the main reason for terror attacks committed by slaves of allah (the non-existing.) They'll continue to blame the US and Israel for all that muslims do in the name of their sick cult and their pirate-pedophile referred to as uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil. They want islam to be viewed as part of Europe and European civilization and culture, and not as a Trojan horse hellbent on destroying it from within.
Posted by: Proud_Kafir7908 at December 14, 2008 1:30 PM
I have been reading the Israeli blogs recently and find the Israelis bickering over things that would be better treated by neglect. They would do well to consider the seriousness of their situation.
RK
Posted by: R.Kyle at December 14, 2008 2:46 PM
What happens when a fly falls into a coffee cup?
The Italian - throws the cup and walks away in a fit of rage.
The Frenchman - takes out the fly, and drinks the coffee.
The Chinese - eats the fly and throws away the coffee.
The Russian - drinks the coffee with the fly, since it was extra with no
charge.
The Israeli - sells the coffee to the Frenchman, the fly to the Chinese,
Buys himself a new cup of coffee and uses the extra money to search for a
Device that attracts flies to drown in coffee.
The Palestinian - blames the Israeli for the fly falling in his coffee,
Protests the act of aggression to the UN, takes a loan from the
European Union to buy a new cup of coffee, uses the money to purchase
explosives
And then blows up the coffee house where the Italian, the Frenchman,
The Chinese, and the Russian are all trying to explain to the Israeli that
he should give away his cup of coffee to the Palestinian.
at December 14, 2008 2:56 PM
RK
keep frequenting the Israeli English-language blogs. At every possible opportunity, hop in and comment, using the facts and formulae that Mr Fitzgerald has conveniently provided for us. The number of times, in the past two years, that in talkbacks to JPost articles and conversations on Israeli blogs I have quoted Mr Fitzgerald's paragraph on the meaning of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya! The number of times I have patiently repeated the names of Bat Yeor, Spencer, and Bostom, and the number of times I have insisted that people must read - must, must, must read, 'Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism'. Over and over, I have cited Qur'an surah 9. Over and over, referred to jizya and dhimmitude and the lot of the dhimmi.
The fallout from Mumbai provided many opportunities to raise the subject of the Global Jihad and its various fronts - in India, in Israel, elsewhere. After Mumbai I sent two letters of condolence - one to the Israeli embassy in my country, and one to the Indian High Commission - and each letter did not just contain deep and sincere condolences, eloquently expressed, but in describing the event that had taken place, employed the bluntly factual terminology that we learn to use, here at jihadwatch. Similar letters were sent to the Israeli embassy after the Mercaz Harav massacre, and to the Indians, after an earlier jihadist terror attack. If we all make a practice of doing this, every time, perhaps the Spencer-Fitzgerald way of understanding and describing our present predicament, may gradually sink in to the minds of those to whom we speak.
One must keep on saying it. Because - unlike the Arab/Muslim Big Lies - the truth corresponds to That Which Is, and those who grasp the truth, including the truth about the Arab/Muslim use of Big Lies, fake treaties, and so on, find that confusion is removed and events become comprehensible, and the actions of the enemy start to become boringly predictable.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at December 14, 2008 3:35 PM
As part of the strategy of inventing nations in order for muslims to claim lands of infidels, I believe that the term "kosovar people" was invented in 1999. Don't know when exactly the term "bosnian people" was invented, perhaps any Serb readers can help?
Just wonder how long it takes before muslim immigrants in western Europe are rebranded from being arabs, pakistanis etc. to becoming separate nations that can claim their own land and propose "a two-state solution" for every nation in western Europe.
Posted by: European Crusader at December 14, 2008 3:53 PM
Whatever can be said about either the fiction of a Palestinian people (and I quite agree that it gets more annoying every time I hear the word) or about Islam as a complicating factor (which may be putting the matter with counterproductive mildness) is the fundamental objection to Israel not that the League of Nations and the British Mandate were not exercising any legitimate right when they planned out the future of Palestine, as the British called it, after 1914-18? Whence derived this right? It is hardly surprising that the Arab League saw no international right to dispose of a territory which had been inhabited by Arabs for 1300 years.
By now, of course, the situation is much more complex: today's Israel has been augmented by the Arab League's stupid wars against it as much as by any Zionist project, and the Arab refusal to recognize that as their own fault deserves no respect. Jordan and Egypt demonstrated what they thought of "Palestinian" autonomy when they were themselves in control of the West Bank and Gaza from 1948 to 1967. They never lifted a finger to establish any such thing.
As far as world opinion goes, I am always amazed at the obsessive attention given to the "Palestinians" while, to take one example only, the 1.5 million Hungarians who were trapped in Romania by the cession of Transylvania to that country at Versailles get about as much attention as the dark side of the moon.
But the case for Israel has always been on the shaky ground of the "right" of the European powers of the time, post 1914-18, to dispose of territory inhabited by Arabs, no matter who else was living there, and in spite of the fact that it had never been a country in the modern sense, and regardless of how many Arabs imigrated into it during the British Mandate. I have never really seen this right established.
(Not that it bothers me personally. To Israel I say: Esto perpetua! I am taking into consideration what must be taken, only that.)
Posted by: Novalis at December 14, 2008 4:16 PM
There are 2 to 3 million "Palestinians" living in the West Bank and Gaza. They exist, whatever you want to call them.
They don't deserve a state NOT because they don't exist, but because they are deliberately pathological, dysfunctional, and addicted to hatred and violence.
Posted by: Cornelius at December 14, 2008 4:30 PM
Can anyone recomment a good book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Posted by: MusalMan at December 14, 2008 5:56 PM
"Can anyone recomment a good book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?"
'From Time Immemorial' by Joan Peters. Kind of dry, but very comprehensive.
Posted by: Cornelius at December 14, 2008 6:14 PM
MusalMan:
"Battleground" by Shmuel Katz
at December 14, 2008 6:51 PM
"A History of Israel From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time" by Howard Sachwar and "The Case for Israel" by Derschowitz.
Hugh's assessment that Israeli ignorance of Islam and of the history of Jewish-Islamic interaction (genocide) is willful is indeed correct. It's a very painful, demoralizing thing to learn about. Christians have a hard time accepting that 1/5 the world subscribes to such a sick, evil, intolerable ideology and Islam isn't quite so obsessed with killing Christians unless they happen to be (far superior) neighbors. It's a Pandora's box, Islam, with all the associated guilt that comes from opening it, because that necessitates hatred, as if hating an ideology were such a bad or difficult thing to do. Jews are by and large highly educated people. We ignore Islam because it's painful, it's ugly, and we're afraid of having to face the big, purple rhinoceros in the living room because we invited it in, gave a some tea, and now it's trying to move in.
Posted by: jdamn at December 14, 2008 8:24 PM
EugeneNow! wrote:
I wish Hugh would take a look at Bret Stephen's article in the September Commentary, "How to Manage Savagery" in which he argues that Islam is heterogeneous and that nationalism may assuage its course.
...................
This idea was shaky fifty years ago, but it is frankly laughable now. We have seen over and over again that Muslims rarely think in terms of "nations". They think in terms of the clan, the tribe, and the Ummah--or, in political terms, the Caliphate. In addition, some think in ethnic terms, especially Arabs.
Certainly, Muslims have not been averse to using nationalistic terms, if they think they might be advantageous on the world stage--like talking about the rights of "the Palestinian people" or "the Iraqis".
But observers--even initially sympathetic ones, have been surprised by the fact that few Muslims think in terms of nationality. Sunnis, and Shi'ites, and Kurds, rarely think of themselves as "Iraqis". The Iraqi Shi'ites often feel an affinity for Iranians, despite the fact that the two nations were at war for eight years, because they share a sect. Iraqi Kurds feel more of an affinity for fellow Kurds in Turkey than other Iraqis.
The "national border" between Pakistan and Afghanistan is routinely ignored--the especially radical Shari'ah ideology of the Taliban is a much bigger unifier than "Afghan" or "Pakistani" citizenship.
I could cite several dozen addition examples--In Sudan, and Nigeria, and Chechnya, and Kosovo-Albania, and the beach-heads of "Eurabia". This is a terribly silly argument, and a diplomatic dead end. I'm just surprised that anyone still thinks there is much of a case for it.
at December 14, 2008 9:10 PM
I more than took a look at it. I read it. It mean nothing, or rather it merely offered me one more example of yet another way of missing-the-point, of failing to learn enough to be entitled even to comment on the situation. He's hardly the worst. Perhaps he will decide to learn more.
Posted by: Hugh at December 14, 2008 9:21 PM
"There are 2 to 3 million "Palestinians" living in the West Bank and Gaza. They exist, whatever you want to call them.
They don't deserve a state NOT because they don't exist, but because they are deliberately pathological, dysfunctional, and addicted to hatred and violence."
-- from a poster above
No, they don't deserve a state for many reasons. One is, as you suggest, that they have become "deliberately pathological, dysfunctional, and addicted to hatred and violence."
But that's only one. Here are some others:
The state of Israel is, as the late Indro Montanelli, the most celebrated of Italian journalists, with a long career (he died at 91) and a deep knowledge of men and events in the 20th century (his "Stanza" in the Corriere della Sera was a history lesson) and of the history of the West (he wrote histories of Italy and of classical antiquity), once wrote that in his view the best thing, and possibly the only good thing, to happen in the twentieth century was the founding of the state of Israel. It was an incredible achievement, against all odds, without almost any help from anyone, and the result is there for all to see.
Israel deserves to survive. It cannot survive without possessing control of the "West Bank" -- not merely military control, but control of the essential aquifers. The "West Bank" is important to what may be called the morale of the Jewish people in Israel, even if Israel's left does not comprehend that, or will come to comprehend it only when it is too late. Furthermore, the "West Bank" was intended by those who disposed of the vast, formerly Ottoman territories, to be assigned to the Mandate for Palestine, which, let it be recalled, was created for the express and sole purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home, and not -- not -- for establishing yet one more Arab Muslim state. Indeed, at the same time the Kurds were promised a state, that the Arabs prevented. And at the time, it appeared that the Christian majority would remain in the Lebanon, and no one could have imagined that Christians in the Middle East would again be on the run, as they are today, because of Muslim demographics, even in Lebanon, and also leaving Iraq and protected in Syria only because the Alawites know that the Christians are no threat, but can help them, possibly, against the real threat to Alawite rule -- the Sunni Muslims who constitute 70% of Syria's population.
Another reason is that the only way peace is kept between Muslims and non-Muslims is if the latter are perceived as being much more powerful. Israel without the "West Bank" will be perceived as much weakened, and this will lead to a dangerous triumphalism among the Arabs and Muslims, and make far greater the likelihood of war. It is only the IDF that "keeps the peace" -- a genuine peace, and not the peace that assorted "truce treaties" bring, for a time, only to be breached in every important way. This is not understood by many outside Israel, oblivious to Islam. It is not understand by many inside Israel either, wilfully oblivious to Islam.
But it's there.
So even if the local Arabs -- and yes, it does matter what they are called, and your remark, one you have made before, indicating you are impatient with the notion that words matter ("they exist, whatever you want to call them"), has you sounding at first like an Israeli leftist, who thinks that he is being the "realist" by saying "what else can we do" or, still more maddening, "well, the 'Palestinians' are there and we can't ignore them" or, most maddening of all, "we can't remain Jewish and democratic as a state if we don't give up the 'West Bank'." However, you do, in your second paragraph quoted, manage to sound a different note. But it is not one based on the legal, moral, and historic rights of the Jews. Nor is it based on the certain behavior, sooner or later, of Muslims who take Islam seriously. No, your objection is that these Arabs in the "West Bank" are "deliberately pathological, dysfunctional, and addicted to hatred and violence."
And if they aren't, then you think Israel should give them that "state" in the "West Bank"? Would temporary good behavior on their part, with some cunning smiler -- say, Sari Nuseibeh, fresh from delivering his Tanner Lectures (oh, I'm sure Homi Bhabha was impressed, but few others, aside from the usual suspects, could have been -- and certainly no one who knows Nuseibeh's speeches to Arab and Muslim audiences would be fooled for one minute)-- replacing Mahmoud Abbas, mean that Israel should simply agree that everything is going to be swell, and that "two-state solution" must surely be the way to go, for why else would Bush and Rice and Blair and Martti Ahtisaari and everyone under the sun call it a "solution"?
Posted by: Hugh at December 14, 2008 9:38 PM
Yeah, plus they have a state. It's called "Jordan."
Posted by: jdamn at December 14, 2008 9:54 PM
“One must keep on saying it. Because - unlike the Arab/Muslim Big Lies - the truth corresponds to That Which Is, and those who grasp the truth, including the truth about the Arab/Muslim use of Big Lies, fake treaties, and so on, find that confusion is removed and events become comprehensible, and the actions of the enemy start to become boringly predictable.”
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy
Absolutely right on, dumbledore, we MUST “keep on saying it”.
I am immensely impressed at your conversations on Israeli English-language blogs – it never occurred to me to use such a forum. And your letters to the Israeli and Indian embassies – well done!
On another note, the more I learn of Islam the more astonished I am at the quiescence of Israel at educating the world as to the danger of this evil ideology.
I began my study of Islam first to find out FOR MYSELF if it was a “religion of peace” (as GW claimed) then later to “hold my enemy closer”. How is it that this same desire to “know your enemy” is not an obsession with the vast majority of Israelis,those foremost “in the cross- hairs”?
How is it that Israel is not a non-stop gushing fount of knowledge about Muhammad? It is truth that will kill Islam - why is Israel mute in the face of this monster?
Posted by: Davegreybeard at December 14, 2008 11:07 PM
Davegreybeard,
I find it fascinating that in my conversations with American Jews, how uncomfortable they get when I start deconstructing the Islamic faith. It's as if their own experiences with prejudice have sensitized them to an extent that the mere idea of critically analyzing another faith is, in-and-of-itself, a form of bigotry.
Posted by: Cornelius at December 15, 2008 4:42 AM
Cornelius - you could do off a photocopy of Maimonides' letter to the Jews of Yemen, and keep it in your back pocket, ready to wave under people's noses.
I think most Jews know who Maimonides was, and most have a rosy view of his life within the Islamosphere...the actual facts are much more confronting, and even more so, his own words.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at December 15, 2008 5:05 AM
All this goes back to the time as the nation of Isreal came back to life when the "Palestinian people" were given what was to become the nation of Jordan to be their homeland. They in turned rejected the offer. If the "Palestinian people" had accepted the offer you would not have seen any of the wars of the last 60 years.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at December 15, 2008 7:04 AM
Here's Maimonides' Epistle to Yemen:
http://www.bethsholom.org/Documents/epistletoyemen2sourcesheet.pdf
Bigatgirl, they were offered their own state not once but 3 times.
Posted by: jdamn at December 15, 2008 7:35 AM
When you come right down to it, the issue seems to be: the very sizeable Arab state that did emerge from the British Mandate doesn't happen to reach the sea. That's earth shaking, isn't it?
Posted by: Novalis at December 15, 2008 1:01 PM
(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.)