| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Several weeks ago I was approached by a national publication and asked to write a piece explaining the Israeli-Arab conflict for the anniversary of the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin -- which is today. The editors asked me to focus on the causes of the conflict and the situation of Catholics in the Middle East (my piece was going to be part of a larger feature on Christians in the Middle East). They supplied the questions below. However, they didn't like my answers, which they found "too edgy."
So here, on the day it would have appeared, is my "edgy" piece:
Ten years ago, on November 4, 1995, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated; his successor, Shimon Peres, immediately pledged to continue Israel’s efforts to secure a lasting peace with Palestinian Arabs and the neighboring Arab states. Succeeding Israeli Prime Ministers have repeated that pledge, culminating in the current Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s recent dramatic withdrawal from Gaza and forcing of Israeli residents there to leave the area. Yet peace seems more elusive than ever.A brief overview of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
Why are they fighting in Israel?
The present conflict can be traced back to the defeat of the Ottoman Turks in World War I. The League of Nations mandated to Britain the formerly Ottoman domains of what today comprise Jordan, Israel, and the West Bank. Inspired by the Zionist movement, thousands of Jews began moving to these areas and revitalizing them, attracting Arabs also to move to what had been a particularly desolate land. The British encouraged this Jewish immigration. In 1923, the British split their “Palestine” mandate into two sections: Palestine (west of the Jordan river) and Transjordan (east of the Jordan). Transjordan (renamed Jordan in 1946) was awarded to the Hashemite dynasty from the Hejaz in what is now Saudi Arabia, and Jews were forbidden to settle there; Palestine was slated to be a new Jewish homeland.
Stoked by the anti-Semitism in the Qur’an (cf. 2:62-65; 5:59-60; 7:166; 9:30) and the traditional Islamic dictum that non-Muslims can never legitimately rule over land that has once belonged to the House of Islam, Arab Muslims began to attack Jews in Palestine. In 1947 the British referred the increasingly violence-ridden area to the United Nations, which drew up a plan to carve a Jewish state and an Arab Muslim state out of Palestine. The Arabs, however, rejected this proposal; any Jewish state, no matter how small, did not square with their Islamic supremacist ideology.
On May 14, 1948, the State of Israel was founded. Armies from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen initiated hostilities against Israel the next day. At that point these Arab states encouraged any Arabs remaining within Israel — around 400,000 — to leave. The refugee status of these unfortunates was prolonged by the Arab states’ general refusal to allow them to settle in their countries, despite the absence of any serious ethnic or linguistic differences between them and the people of Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. (Jordan did grant Jordanian citizenship to the Arabs of the West Bank when it annexed this territory in 1950.) The Arab states wanted to use the refugee problem as a propaganda weapon against Israel, and thus had no interest in seeing these refugees settled in new homes.
The war ended in 1949 with Israel’s independence secured. Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (the West Bank) annexed much of the territory of what had been slated by the UN to become a Palestinian Arab Muslim state. Neither Egypt nor Jordan, however, ever made any effort to establish such a state on those territories. Their pressure on Israel, however, continued. In 1964, Yasir Arafat founded the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which was dedicated to the total destruction of Israel. He set out to create the notion of a Palestinian nationality, distinct from the nationalities of the surrounding states, to buttress his claim that the Palestinian Arabs deserved a nation-state of their own. In 1967, Israel defeated Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in the Six-Day War and occupied Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights in southern Syria, as well as Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. Israeli General Moshe Dayan pleaded with the Muslim Arabs in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip not to leave those areas; he hoped to persuade them that the Israelis weren’t so bad after all, and thereby put an end to the conflict. This goodwill gesture, however, only exacerbated the ongoing conflict when the Palestinian Arabs in those areas proved themselves to be unable or unwilling to discard the supremacist Islamic ideology that led them to dedicate their efforts to destroy Israel altogether.In 1982, as part of the Camp David Peace Accord brokered by Jimmy Carter, Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt. Israel continued to occupy the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and Gaza — which ultimately led Arafat to launch two intifadas, or uprisings. The first began in 1987 and continued until 1993; the second began in 2000 and essentially continued until the Gaza withdrawal of 2005.
Who is fighting?
On one side are the Israelis. On the other is the Palestinian Authority, the successor group to the PLO and the recognized governing organization for the Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. The PA is supported by the neighboring Arab states, which have never relented in their hostility toward Israel. Even Egypt, which is nominally at peace with Israel since the Camp David Accord, continues to tolerate extreme and vicious anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli sentiment (along with anti-Americanism) in its mainstream media.
There are also two principal Islamic jihadist groups, the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and Islamic Jihad. Both are listed as terrorist groups by the State Department. Hamas has set itself up as the chief exponent of the jihad ideology and roadblock to peace in the Middle East, declaring in its charter of August 1988 that “nothing is loftier or deeper in Nationalism than waging Jihad against the enemy and confronting him when he sets foot on the land of the Muslims.” Hamas criticized the PLO for adopting secular principles, and insisted that only an Islamic state could be established in Palestine: “In spite of our appreciation for the PLO and its possible transformation in the future, and despite the fact that we do not denigrate its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we cannot substitute it for the Islamic nature of Palestine by adopting secular thought. For the Islamic nature of Palestine is part of our religion, and anyone who neglects his religion is bound to lose.” The Palestinian Authority has in part come around to this point of view: Islam is its official religion and the Sharia, traditional Islamic law, is a heavy influence in its legal code.
Hamas identifies itself in the Charter as “one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a world organization, the largest Islamic Movement in the modern era. It is characterized by a profound understanding, by precise notions and by a complete comprehensiveness of all concepts of Islam in all domains of life: views and beliefs, politics and economics, education and society, jurisprudence and rule, indoctrination and teaching, the arts and publications, the hidden and the evident, and all the other domains of life.” The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928; besides Hamas, it is also the forerunner of Al-Qaeda.
Who are the major players?
The principal figures currently include Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel, the main force behind the withdrawal from Gaza; and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), the successor of Yasir Arafat. The Hamas leadership has been shadowy ever since Israeli forces killed Sheikh Yassin, one of the foremost leaders of the organization. Presidents Assad of Syria and Mubarak of Egypt, as well as Jordan’s King Abdullah II and Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, are also key players.
What role has the West played in the situation (good & bad)?
The West has been intertwined in the entire conflict since World War I. First Britain and then the United States, as well as the United Nations, have attempted on numerous occasions to negotiate a settlement acceptable to both sides. This has proved impossible because of the intransigence of the jihadist element among the Palestinian Arabs and neighboring Muslim states.
The Hamas Charter expresses it this way: “[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: ‘Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware [Qur’an 12:21].’”
Where do Catholics fit into all of this? Where are they today?
There was and is a significant number of Catholics among the Palestinian Arabs. Today there are around 50,000 Christian Arabs in the Palestinian Authority; most are Eastern Orthodox, while many are Roman and Eastern Catholics. Christians in general comprise less than three percent of the total Arab population — down from nearly twenty percent in 1948. Christians have seized every opportunity they could to leave the strife-ridden Middle East. To take one notorious example, Bethlehem was 80% Christian in 1948; now it is 80% Muslim. In March 2000, Pope John Paul told the Christians of Bethlehem: “Do not be afraid to preserve your Christian heritage and Christian presence in Bethlehem.”
Palestinian Christians have, according to Lebanese scholar Habib Malik, tended to fall back upon “the myth that everything was fine between Christians and Muslims until Israel came along.” Having largely identified with the Muslim majority, many of these Christians have been hostile to Israel; however, the Islamic supremacism of the Muslims is no more welcoming to them than it is to the Jews. Also, belying the claims of many (including some Christian Arabs) that Israel has made life more difficult for Christians than the neighboring Arab states, the Christian population in Israel has actually quadrupled since 1948, while it has plummeted in the Arab nations.
Israel is, of course, a Western-style secular republic that guarantees freedom of religion; by contrast, in the Arab states, discrimination against Christians is deeply culturally ingrained. This ultimately stems, of course, from the stipulation in Islamic law that Christians — classified in Islamic law as dhimmis, or “protected people” — must in exchange for this protection “feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29) in the Islamic state, paying a special tax (jizya) and submitting to an elaboration of discriminatory measures.
In accord with this, Christians today face a great deal of discrimination and harassment in the Palestinian Authority. Christianity is not infrequently denounced as a renegade, heretical religion by Islamic preachers on official PA television and radio. Muslim radicals have manifested the other side of the same dynamic by consistently mistreating the Christian population of the Middle East, particularly Palestinian Christians. Palestinian jihad fighters have even used Christian sites and people as shields against the Israelis. In Spring 2002 they appropriated Bethlehem’s Manger Square as a base of operations, knowing that Israeli forces would not attack them there and would face international opprobrium if they did. This activity precipitated the siege of the Church of the Nativity in April and May of that year. After launching attacks against the Israelis from Manger Square, a group of jihadists fled into the church, where they remained for 39 days — secure in the knowledge that Israel would not attack a Christian holy site. Meanwhile, they desecrated the church.
This notorious episode epitomizes the plight of Palestinian Christians. Malik observes that because of the supremacist character of the jihad ideology, “removing Israel from the equation and satisfying the Palestinians beyond their wildest dreams would not eliminate the violence against non–Muslims inherent in political Islam.” He points out that “were Israel not in the picture the problem of dhimmi subservience would still exist for Palestinian Christians.”
Mindful of this plight, Patriarch Gregory III Laham of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church asked at the Synod of Bishops in Rome last month that the Christian world not forget its Arab brethren. According to Catholic World News, “in light of international terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, Arabic Christians urgently need support, the Melkite Patriarch said. He argued that if universal Church showed support for the Christian minority in the Arabic world, that support would encourage and embolden the Christians who are now living under extremely difficult circumstances.”
Let us then remember the embattled Christians of the Middle East — and offer them every kind of support as well. The jihad against them is the same jihad that confronts Israel, the United States, and the rest of the free world.
Posted by Robert at November 4, 2005 11:35 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
This article is filled with well-researched facts, thoughtful assessments, and truthful insights into the plight of the Palestinian Christians. The "edge" is definitely in the eye of the PC editor who rejected the piece. The one piece of the puzzle that I will never understand is the seeming lack of Christian opposition leadership that should have resisted Arafat and the PLO years ago. Didn't the Christians ever read the graffiti on the walls of Bethlehem and many other towns that read, "The Saturday people first and then the Sunday people." Did they not wonder then what fate their Muslim neighbors had in mind for them? When my husband visited the area 15 years ago, during the first Intifada, those signs were all around. It's a sad situation; the Christians need all of the support that they can get from the outside world. They also need to speak out for themselves on the truth about Islam as it slowly strangles their community.
Posted by: maryrose![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 4, 2005 12:19 PM
Excellent piece. No mention of the prime aiders and abettors of the Arab block, the USSR.
MaryRose: any piece that diverges from the currently accepted version of a happy landscape dominated by orange groves and Muslims is too edgy for some people. As for the Christians of the region, well, the sad truth of the matter is that the animosity Eastern Christians hold toward Jews long preceeds the animosity Muslims hold toward Jews and there hasn't been an equivalent Vatican II for the Copts, Maronites, etc. despite the fact that the Israelis put an end to the destruction of Christian holy sites that went on under various Muslim regimes. No, most of them probably feel as Edward Said did, that they were put out of their homes because of the establishment of the State of Israel and not because the surrounding Arab countries instructed them to flee to provide them with a clear path to annihilate the Jews.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 4, 2005 12:38 PM
Chaz:
It's "Palestinians" that's the expression at issue as a definable nationality and not a regional name, bestowed by the Romans, that was also considered part of Greater Syria at various times.
Palestine never had a goverment of its own, distinct language of its own, etc.. The native dialects of the region were Aramaic-based, but not Arabic and the name Palestine had mixed reception anyway. If you ever have the opportunity to look at world maps from the era of great European naval exploration (15th century), you will see the area was marked "Judea".
Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 4, 2005 1:09 PM
You have the temerity to tell the truth, the Emperor is naked. They still want to hear about the finest thread that only the best and smartest people can see.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at November 4, 2005 1:17 PM
maryrose
One would have thought that Christians would have seen the writing on the wall after the massacre, amongst others, that of the Christians of Damour in Lebanon in 1976 by Arafat's PLO and Saika.
Chaz MarteL 732
The League took the name of the region from the Roman designation.
The Palestinians for the British were the Jews living in the region.
They formed various brigades to help the British during WW1 (The Palestine Mule Corps) and WW2 (Palestine Brigade).
The Jerusalem Post was the Palestine Post before Independence.
I'm sure that on this blog you can find references to where and when the Palestinian Arabs appeared on the scene.
at November 4, 2005 1:18 PM
As a Jew, I give thanks every day for "edgy" Catholics like Robert Spencer who are committed to speaking the truth.
Posted by: scaramouoche at November 4, 2005 2:32 PM
The article is as tactful in its presentation of the facts as it could be! If the article is edgy at all, it is only because the truth is as edgy as a cube.
How could a magazine article on the Mideast not be edgy? It seems as though the magazine gave Spencer a mission impossible, and they set him up to fail.
If they found that this article was unacceptable, the "national publication" that rejected the article should have never have asked Spencer to write on the subject in the first place! It reminds me of the 2004 Democratic Convention where USA Today asked Ann Coulter to write an op-ed piece. She wrote her normal stuff that her fans like, but USA Today didn't like it. If a publication already knows that it doesn't like an author's views and will spike their column no matter what, it is wrong for them to waste that author's time by asking them to write a piece!
Michele Malkin Excerpt:
The paper has been quite sincere in its outreach to conservative writers (present company included and I'm grateful), but its reaction to Coulter is ridiculous. Anyone who has ever gotten past her byline knows that the spiked column is classic Coulter. By signing her on, the paper signaled that it knew what it was getting. It then got what it got--pure, unadultered, 100 percent proof Coulter--and proceeded to freak out big time. Talk about buyer's remorse.
Posted by: markjames at November 4, 2005 2:43 PM
waterdragon: Excellent piece. No mention of the prime aiders and abettors of the Arab block, the USSR.
Excellent Red Herring, waterdragon. Did you know that the USSR is gone now, for good?
No mention of the REAL prime aiders and abettors of the Arab block, SAUDI ARABIA.
**********************************************
It reminds me of the 2004 Democratic Convention where USA Today asked Ann Coulter to write an op-ed piece. She wrote her normal stuff that her fans like, but USA Today didn't like it.
Maybe they thought that she would actually REPORT on what happened, instead of lie and lie and lie about the Democrats.
Posted by: kj at November 4, 2005 2:53 PM
DHIMMI ALERT!!!
The good news is that the sale of fighter jets to Pakistan that Bush agreed to is off. The bad news is that Bush isn't the one that canceled it:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051104/ap_on_re_as/south_asia_quake
Posted by: kj at November 4, 2005 2:57 PM
Hey kj, I've had the pleasure of listening to Republican (aka conservative) pundits and appartchiks on TV and RAdio, and they share a lot in common with the Muslims, especially a penchant for hyperbole,obfuscation,distortion, overstatement, scapegoating and lamentably a very Muslim like inability at self reflection and admission of fault and blame.. not all the Republican part of my youth and not the Republican party or conservativism of Barry Goldwater. What was once honest populist conservativism has been displaced by radical, religious self righteousness.
On topic, I wish Robert would tell us the name of the Publication that refused his article.
Perhaps it would have helped if he quoted a respected Islamic religious site Dilemna of Recognizing Israel From Tanzeem.org.
Less Jihad Watchers get their shorts in a wedgie, I am a pro Israel, "Islamaophobic" "liberuhl" (but not Marxist), and there would be many more were it not for the stupidity, irrational rhetoric, rants and politics of the righteous (and stupid) right.
Posted by: Nariz at November 4, 2005 3:18 PM
Maryrose wrote:
The one piece of the puzzle that I will never understand is the seeming lack of Christian opposition leadership that should have resisted Arafat and the PLO years ago.
In The Custody Must Be Doubled in the Holy Land, your question is answered. Read it all, it is a fascinating article.
Previously, the Palestinian movement was of a predominantly nationalistic character. And this character was due in large part to the contribution of Christian Arabs belonging to a refined and Westernized élite, which was not without tinges of Marxism. The guerilla leaders George Habbash, Wadi Haddad, and George Hawatmeh were Christians. But the leading proponents of the moderate and pragmatic wing, which supported the Oslo accords, were also Christian: Hanan Ashwari, Hanna Seniora, and Afif Safia.Posted by: LisaBut now the latter of these figures are in the shadows and under threat. Even the death of Yasser Arafat has worked to the disadvantage of the Christians.
And they are emigrating. In the historic "Christian triangle" formed by Bethlehem and the two adjacent villages of Beit Jala and Beit Sahur, three quarters of the population were baptized Christians half a century ago. Today the Christians in Bethlehem have been reduced to 6,500 out of 35,000 inhabitants, and they have fallen by half in Beit Jala and Beit Sahur. Everywhere the sound of the church bells is drowned out by the blaring loudspeakers of the muezzins.
at November 4, 2005 4:20 PM
nariz, this is for you and kj:
Today’s Extras on Jihad’s 5th Column:
Indoctrination in the schools:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20033
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20029
at November 4, 2005 4:49 PM
I bet this is what they found too "edgy":
"Stoked by the anti-Semitism in the Qur’an (cf. 2:62-65; 5:59-60; 7:166; 9:30) and the traditional Islamic dictum that non-Muslims can never legitimately rule over land that has once belonged to the House of Islam, Arab Muslims began to attack Jews in Palestine... any Jewish state, no matter how small, did not square with their Islamic supremacist ideology."
These statements by Spencer are extremely outside the pale of the vast majority of the PC West (who in turn, unfortunately, still constitute the vast majority of the West).
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at November 4, 2005 4:56 PM
I'm a simple guy who enjoys reading honest, informative and straight forward articles such as this.
Sadly, though needed, I can't imagine a Robert Spencer column in the San Francisco Chronicle or the Los Angeles Times.
Such is their readers' loss.
Posted by: PRCS at November 4, 2005 5:34 PM
Robert, you left out at least two interesting stories that may have made the article even edgier, yet balanced it.
Firstly, the article doesn't mention the obvious and linear influence of Nazis on the Palestinian movement, with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem being a long-time Jew-hater, then Nazi collaborator, who idolized Hitler and escaped prosecution for war crimes after WW2 by hiding out in British controlled Palestine. Not only was he a Nazi collaborator, he was also Arafat's mentor.
Secondly, the Jewish Irgun gang was complicit in the beginnings of terror in Palestine. Thank God that Begin finally abandoned terror as a tactic. But no thanks to Arafat or his idolators of Jihad for not only keeping terror as a tactic, but intensifying it until they produced a hell on earth for everyone in what was once called Palestine and then was called Israel, no matter what their religion might be.
at November 4, 2005 6:26 PM
“If the Moslems were to put down their arms, there would be peace in Israel, If the Jews were to put down their arms, there would be no Israel”
Author unknown, to me...
Posted by: Bar at November 4, 2005 7:41 PM
Waterdragon: "If you ever have the opportunity to look at world maps from the era of great European naval exploration (15th century), you will see the area was marked "Judea"."
Great googaly moogaly! As recent as that? As in "Popular Front of Judea"?
"So is this is the Popular's Front of Judea?"
"PEOPLE'S Front!"
"I beg your pardon?"
"PEOPLE'S Front of Judea!"
"Oh, I see." "Whatever happened to the Popular Front of Judea?"
"He's over there."
..."SPLINTER!"
Etc.
Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at November 4, 2005 7:52 PM
Oh no.... Gary "forgot" to metion the Sixth Column: Dubya, Condi, Norquist, Baker, Kissinger, etc.
AGAIN.
But he did find time to post a couple of off-topic articles about evil schoolteachers. In California, I noticed. (No I didn't read the entirety of the articles but I noticed that California was cited quite a bit.)
Yeah, in Bizarro Gary World, grade-school teachers actually have more power on world events and American Foreign Policy than the Bush administration. Pretty funny, huh? Mayhap Gary, like other mad ramblers here at JW/DW (Catherine call your office) has taken to the EIB Oxycontin Weight-Loss Plan. Here's a fine example from above:
Oh Jesus, Mary, and Joseph please we beseech you do not foresake us our balance, our sight, nor our courage. For on the right we are bedeviled by the elusive Moderate Moslem, and on the left we are enfeebled by the fabled Non-Marxist Leftist. Bracketed so, woe is unto Rational Man.
....alrighty then....
Now Gary, much of this acedhimmia cited at frontpagemag is going on in California...(BTW they didn't say much--if anything--about Islam, just the same old whiney lies about the "flawed theory" of Global Warming, the poor, maligned Christopher Columbus, the ANWAR, etc.)
But anyway, this is happening "a lot" in California... is Arnold Shwartnegger doing anything about it? Why isn't Darrell Issa doing anything about it? Why didn't Governor Wilson do anything about it? And how about that McClintock guy?
Here's an idea. How about that old Unlce Tom, Ward Connerly? He soils his Depends every time a black kid gets admitted to college... he goes from state to state, begging his masters to make it harder for black people to attend college. Why doesn't some "think tank" hire him to get rid of the dhimmitude that is "taking over our schools"?
Speaking of self-hatred, Bush hired "journalist" Armstrong Williams (with YOUR tax money, natch) to promote the Bush agenda in his "columns"... why don't they get someone to do the same thing about dhimmitude in school? Hell, Williams could probably use the work.
And Gary, knowing what we know about Saudi Arabia, do you agree with Bush that we should let 10,000 MORE Saudis into America to "attend college"? Or is there some kind of way you can blame that on Kerry and Momma Ketchup? Oh, I know: Kerry would've let in 10 MILLION, right Gary?
Should we agree with Bush, who says we should sell military jets to Pakistan? Or is that all because Clinton stopped Milosevic's genocide? Or would Slick Willie have just GIVEN them to Pakistan?
Should we agree with Bush who says Saudi Arabia should be let into the WTO? Or was that Hillary Clinton's doing? (Damn her to hell for snubbing the Gold Star Mothers... oh wait, that wasn't her; that was Fearless Cowboyman.)
I WOULD so LOVE to hear your explanation Gary. And, as always, I am waiting for your response to my oft-made claim:
BUSH IS HANDING YOUR TAX DOLLARS TO "FAITH-BASED" MUSLIM "CHARITIES" THAT USE IT FOR DAWA AND JIHAD.
Come ON, ye patriots from the shining city on the hill! Can't ANYONE defend this?
LOL....It really is a simple matter. You can't defend it because you know it's true. And you know that no other president has ever done this before. And you're in a personality cult that USED to stand for fiscal discipline, no nation building, strong national defense, supporting veterans, etc. (Like your old party of Goldwater, Nariz! Yeah, I'm so old that I too can remember when Purple Heart veterans commanded respect from "patriots" but what the hey.)
The fact is the "Fifth Column," like the efficiency of abstinance-sex-education, is largely a figment of the collective imagination of a certain group of people (that I don't think I need to name here.)
Meanwhile the "Sixth Column" (The Pope, the Bush Administration, the MSM, the "alternative" media, the far Right, the far Left, etc.) is Islamizing the whole damn world.
Yes, I said the far Left AND the far Right. The difference is MY side isn't the one in power NOW. MY side isn't the one that's letting thousands of OTMs sneak across the southern border every year. MY side isn't the one that can't even get ice or DRINKING WATER to disaster sites... how the hell would they have gotten all the decontamination equipment in had it been a dirty (or otherwise) NUKE? There is a freakin' INTERSTATE HIGHWAY along the Gulf Coast and through New Orleans, people.
But hey, don't blame Brownie: his experience paid off, and he did an excellent job pertaining to his training: not ONE Arabian (???) horse died after Katrina.
*********************************************
Glad to see Catherine back on the forum again... it's been a long time since I read utter nonesense. Catherine, you said recently that the DemocRats want us to be more like the French... I don't suppose you have a quote handy, eh? No, I don't mean a quote from Mikey Savage or Oxy Limbaugh SAYING that's what the DemocRats say, I mean a statement from a DemocRat saying it.
************************************************
kj
fanorollins@yahoo.com
Posted by: kj at November 4, 2005 11:23 PM
And yes, Spencer: please divulge who said that you were "too edgy". I'll make sure that my money is "too edgy" for them, they won't get one thin dime from me. And I bet everyone here feels the same way.
Maybe they had one of those Saudi Arabian investors, like FOX "news."
Posted by: kj at November 4, 2005 11:25 PM
Hard to know what 'too edgy' means, exactly. "Edgy" emerged in a new way as a term in pop-media vocabulary about a year or two ago, and seems in its new form to mean something like cutting edge, testing boundaries, risky, stimulating in the way coffee or speed are stimulating, perhaps with a note of anxiety.
It sounds like the editor was deprecating himself or his publication for not being cutting edge enough to publish Spencer's piece. The editor may know that this site has recently been averaging 400,000+ hits per day, and that Spencer is popular, so offending his readers might not be good for business. Or the editor may think that Spencer, as a national public intellectual, could in the not far future be perceived as less 'edgy' and more downright indispensible. Good then to compliment him with the term 'edgy,' so as to keep on good terms with him, in case he should ever be adopted by the mainstream media.
Posted by: eduardo odraude at November 5, 2005 1:40 AM
I have to admit that, prior to 9/11, I had little understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I always suspected that the key problem that needed to be solved was to defeat the terrorists, but I did not fully understand the basis of their stated motives.
On 9/11, after the planes hit, on the news we saw ordinary Palestinians joyfully dancing in the streets and celebrating. You could see the glee in their eyes. We heard reports that some media had captured footage of thousands of Palestians celebrating, but those tapes were not released. How could they be gleeful at the deaths of thousands of innocent people? To find out why, I read up on a bit of the history, and looked into the practice of brainwashing in Palestinian schools. Even then, I still assumed that the radicals were propagating a distorted version of Islam. (Where would I get an idea like that?)
Before I had read the Koran (and read materials such as articles on this website), I too probably would have been taken somewhat aback by Robert's article. However, after having read the Koran, the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict became comprehensible. As Robert noted, the Islamists are acting in accordance with the Koran in attempting to regain what they think is dar al Islam--any land ever occupied by Islamic people must always be Islamic. If Muslims lose control over that land, it must be reclaimed at all costs. In addition, reports in the Hadiths reveal the Islamic policy of the extermination of the Jews, starting with their removal from the Arabian Penninsula. I realized that terrorists like Arafat weren't distorting the Islamic doctrines, they were acting in accordance with them.
The Koran says Muslims must fight non-Muslims until all religion is for Allah. The Koran contains the most expressed hatred toward a group of people (non-Muslims) that I have ever read. The Koran insists that Muslims are great, whereas disbelievers are the worst of all Allah's creations.
Here are my notes thus far on the Islamic doctrinal bases for the jihads/terrorist attacks on Israel and on non-Muslims generally. I'm no expert, just an ordinary citizen trying to educate myself and others about the threat we face. Fellow posters, feel free to use this material.
Islamic Imperialism and Supremacism.
Allah sent Mohammad to conquer all other religions (9:33, 48:28, 61:9). Ultimate goal: kill/convert/subdue all disbelievers until all religion is for Allah 2:193, 8:39. Muslims must commit to the goals of Islam during their lifetime.
Muslims are the best people the world has ever seen (3:110) because of their belief in Allah only and strict adherence to Islam. Allah speaks Arabic (20:113, 41:3). (Arabic is one of the youngest languages and was not used for the books of the Judeo-Christian Bible).
Land Policy
Allah reduces the land occupied by the disbelievers (13:41, 21:44), and he makes (some) believers live in the land of the disbelievers (14:13-14), land known as Dar al Harb (land/house of war). This land of the disbelievers is granted by Allah to be inherited by believers so they (believers) may establish the authority of Allah (24:55) making it Dar al Islam. Once land is Dar al Islam, it remains so forever as far as Allah is concerned; if lost to the enemy, it must be regained. Non-Muslims must be banned from any land that was ever Islamic (21:95).
Treaties
Mohammad’s treaties/peace agreements with non-Muslims were merely temporary tactical moves; they could be overruled at any time by the greater goal of destroying non-Muslims (e.g., see 9:1-17). The tradition continues.
Final Policy Toward the Jewish People
A report narrated by a man named Muslim from Abu Hurayrah, the prophet said:
“The hour (of the Day of Judgement) will not begin until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. A Jew will hide behind a rock or a tree, and the rock or tree will say ‘Oh Muslim, O slave of Allah! There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!’ –except for the gharqad (bow thorn), for it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (Reported by Muslim, 2922). This passage was also quoted by Osama bin Laden, May 28, 1998, in an interview with John Bell of ABC News.
Hadith:Book 19, Number 4366: Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:
"Umar heard the Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say: 'I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Penninsula and will not leave any but Muslims.'"
Policy Toward Christians and Jews and Other Religious People
(They are viewed as disbelievers, except if they publicly (and presumably privately) convert to Islam fully and exclusively (i.e., must deny “partners” such as priests, rabbis, monks, Jesus, Mary, Ezra?!--Mohammad claims the Jews worship Ezra?!, and must accept Mohammad’s validity as a prophet). Note: People of the Book are Christians and Jews.
They (people of the book) disbelieve in Allah and confound truth with falsehood (3:70-3:71). Christians lie when they talk about the son of God (18:4-5).
Jesus taught them compassion and mercy in the Gospels, but Christians turned to monasticism…many of them are evil-livers (57:27).
Fight against them, kill, convert, or subdue them and (only if it is beneficial to Islam) force them to pay a tax that Muslims do not have to pay (9:29-35). If they refuse to pay, kill them. (Other option is slavery).
Condemned to hell/cursed/doomed/bad/evil/turned into swine or apes, etc. (2:61, 4:48, 4:50, 4:116, 4:47-52, 4:55, 4:157, 4:160, 5:12-5:13, 5:37, 5:51, 5:53, 5:59-60, 5:72-73, 5:79, 9:29-35, 18:52, 33:26, 59:14, 98:1).
Jews will face Allah’s wrath because they made friendships with those who disbelieve (5:80).
Must convert to Allah only, or else be doomed (2:62-65, 3:85). Note that 3:85 refers explicitly to the Islamic religion as the “Surrender.” Jews are wrong-doers who will face a painful doom unless they believe in Allah (4:160-161).
He who ascribes partners to Allah is lost, as if a bird has snatched him out of the air and taken him away (22:31)
Mohammad (Allah) says Jews look ugly and they are foolish (62:5). Jews are greedy (2:91), and are evil-livers (5:59).
Allah will mock Christians when they burn in Hell, asking them Where are your partners now? (40:73).
Priests and Rabbis do “evil work” (5:63). Many Jews guilty of evil conduct (5:81). Jews act like Christians when they are around Christians (5:82).
Some of them (people of the scripture) are believers, but most of them are evil-livers (3:110), wretchedness is upon them because they disbelieved, slew the prophets wrongfully, were rebellious and transgressed (3:112).
Muslims won’t get hurt fighting them (the people of the book), who will turn and flee and afterwards will not be helped (3:111)
The Jews and Christians flung the scripture behind their backs and gained evil (3:187)
Christians and Jews who disbelieve scripture are the worst creatures in Allah’s sight (98:6) and will receive hell-fire.
Idolaters are unclean (9:28). Turn away from idolaters (6:106). Don’t pray for idolaters (9:113). Let the idolaters kill their own children (6:137).
2. Violent Jihad.
According to the Koran it is wrong (in general) for Muslims to kill other Muslims (4:93). I focus here generally on violent jihad, which is directed toward non-Muslims.
Extra rewards for jihad/fighting/killing in the name of Allah 2:149, 2:215, 2:244-245, 3:163, 3:169, 3:195, 4:57, 4:69, 4:74, 4:97, 9:20, 9:81, 37:40-49*, 48:19, 48:28-29, 61:2-4, 61:9-12. *Note that 37:40-47 says the true pure slaves of Allah will be rewarded with (among other things) lovely-eyed virgins of modest gaze.
Rewards for sheltering those who fight for Allah (8:74).
Believers must terrorize the disbelievers 3:151, 9:5, 59:13. Also see 33:35-36, 59:2, 21:97.
Entrap and “dismay” (some translations say “terrorize”) the disbelievers (8:59-60).
Along with prophets and saints, martyrs are best company and favoured by Allah (4:69).
Allah grades (or ranks) the honour among believers (4:95, 4:96, 8:4). He favours those who are active in promoting Islam rather than mere sedentary believers (4:95). Only single-minded slaves of Allah will escape eternal doom (37:127-128).
When believers kill non-believers, it is Allah that is doing the killing (8:17)
“Little do you remember My warning. How many towns have We destroyed as a raid by night? Our punishment took them suddenly while infidels slept for their afternoon rest. Our terror came to them; Our punishment overtook them.”(7:3)
The disbelievers should not think that they can bypass Islam; surely they cannot escape.
Koran 8:59 (see all of 8:57-59)
Believers must kill and be killed for Allah (9:111). Exhort the believers to fight the unbelievers (8:59-70, esp. 8:65).
Must not turn away from fighting the disbelievers, otherwise go to hell (8:15-16). Must fight, or receive a painful doom from Allah (9:39). Believers must wage war for Allah, whether they like it or not (2:216). Fight the disbelievers using your weapons (heavy or light) or your wealth (9:41), your wealth and your lives (61:11). Fight for Allah against the disbelievers (4:76)
Allah tests believers by compelling them to kill unbelievers (8:17); true believers will kill or be killed for Allah. Allah could punish the disbelievers directly, but instead he tests some people (believers) by using other people (disbelievers); those believers who are slain in battle will be rewarded (47:4). Allah uses the prospect of battle to find out what is in men’s hearts; disbelievers stay away from the fight, but believers go into the fight. Those who die fighting for Allah will be rewarded (3:154-159; 3:167-172).
Do not call for peace when you have the upper hand (47:35).
“Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us…” Tabari IX:69.
“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’” Bukhari:vol. 4, book 52, no. 220
Bukhari: vol 4 Book 53, no. 386. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah alone or pay us the Jizyah tribute tax in submission.
Muslim vol. 9, book 1, no. 31. I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah.
Tabari VI:138. Those present at the oath of Aqabah had sworn an allegiance to Muhammad. It was a pledge of war against all men. Allah had permitted fighting.
When Allah gave permission to his Apostle to fight, the second Aqaba contained conditions involving war which were not in the first act of submission. Now we bound themselves to war against all mankind for Allah and His Apostle.
Ishaq:208
‘Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man?’ ‘Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.’
Ishaq:204
If you come upon them (infidels), deal so forcibly as to terrify those who would follow, that they may be warned. Make a severe example of them by terrorizing Allah’s enemies.
Ishaq:326
We have been dealt a situation from which there is no escape. You have seen what Muhammad has done. Arabs have submitted to him and we do not have the strength to fight. You know that no herd is safe from him. And no one even dares go outside for fear of being terrorized.
Tabari IX:42
Devotion to Allah.
A Muslim man’s wives and children are mere temptations and should not distract him from his devotion to Allah (63:9, 64:14-15)
“The life of this world is but comfort of illusion.” (3:185).
Policy Toward Disbelievers.
(“Disbeliever” generally refers to all non-Muslims).
The worst possible sin is disbelief in or denial of Allah 10:17, 11:18-19, 18:15, 32:22. Disbelief or turning away from Allah is a persecution worse than warfare (2:217) or slaughter (2:191). Allah boasts as having carried out multiple genocides throughout history to wipe out the disbelievers (17:16-17). Allah brings death through disaster upon those who disbelieve and dismiss his words as fable (16:22-26), causing the roof of their building to collapse on them.
If maintained, the sin of disbelief is not forgiven 4:48, 4:116. There are at least 250 verses wherein Allah condemns disbelievers to hell-fire, torture, etc., in the afterlife.
What Muslims should know about disbelievers and how they should regard/ act toward them (also see jihad):
fight/oppose/shun/strive against/regard as the enemy/never help/never befriend/sever family ties with/never compromise with/never obey/never forgive/chastise/curse/be ruthless toward/be stern toward/ etc. (not in order) 3:118; 3:28, 3:56; 3:87-88, 4:50, 4:63, 4:101, 4:139-140, 4:144, 5:54, 5:57, 8:65, 9:14, 9:23, 9:29, 9:73-74, 9:123, 25:52, *28:86, 31:7, 33:48, 45:7-8, 48:28-29, 53:29, 58:5, 58:22, 60:1, 60:4, 60:10, 60:13, 63:6, 66:9, 68:8-9, 76:24, 84:24.
Note that the ‘never help the disbelievers’ (*28:86) command means that Muslims’ good works should be limited to helping other Muslims or to otherwise pursuing Islam’s interests.
60:4 says followers of Allah will hate the disbelievers forever until they believe in Allah only.
4:144 "Believers, do not choose the unbelievers rather than the faithful as your friends. Would you give Allah a clear proof against yourselves?"
3:118 "Oh you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand."
Disbelievers make a jest of the believers and Allah will punish/doom them for it (2:211-2:212). Those who malign the prophet and Allah will be damned (33:57), those who malign Muslims will be doomed, hypocrites and alarmists will be slain wherever they are found (33:58-61).
Kill the disbelievers wherever you find them 4:89-91. In those verses, ‘disbelievers’ refers to hypocrites and apostates, who turned back instead of following in the way of Allah (with Mohammad), and to disbelievers generally, who are not protected. Those protected would include taxed dhimmis, slaves owned by Muslims, or those with whom Muslims have some temporary strategic treaty.
Disbelievers: are “worst of created beings” (98:6), are “miscreants” (2:99, 24:55), are the worst beasts in Allah’s sight (8:55), are “a folk without intelligence”/ “most ignorant” (8:65, 6:111), “evil” is upon them (16:27), evil (2:91, 2:99), liars/they lie (2:10, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11), the “wrong-doers” (2:254, 5:45), on the side of the devil (Satan) and are fighting for him (4:76-77); “enemy” and “perverted” (63:4); “wicked” (80:42, 9:125); hypocrites, i.e., those who only pretend to be religious (4:61); losers who are deceived by Allah (2:6), and deceived by Satan (4:60); have a “diseased heart” (2:10, 9:125); are ill (84:20); are “guilty” for disbelieving (45:31, 83:29); deaf, dumb, and blind, and have no sense (2:171); have no sense (5:103); their fathers were unintelligent and had no knowledge or guidance (2:170, 5:104); Allah assigns them devils for protecting friends (7:27); they choose devils for protecting friends (7:30); disgraced lives (22:9); “losers” (7:179); foolish and liars (7:66), liars and losers (58:18-19), false pride and schism (38:2); are partisan against Allah (25:55).
Disbelievers who do good works do so in vain, because they are going to hell anyway (5:5, 18:104-106, also 18:30, 33:19, 47:1, 47:32). Their works are as ashes blown away by the wind; they have no control over what they have earned (14:18).
Disbelievers are deceived by Allah, then Allah punishes them for it (17:97).
Those who lead Muslims away from Allah will receive hell-fire/ painful doom (22:9, 58:14-15)
Those who deny Mohammad’s revelations are evil (7:177).
When disbelievers are allowed to join together, there will be confusion and corruption in the land (8:73); believers must counter this by joining up together in opposition to the disbelievers.
Muslims should not believe non-Muslims (3:73).
Act hard against the disbelievers (non-Muslims) but be merciful to other believers (48:29).
Posted by: Archimedes at November 5, 2005 3:17 AM
kj~ Bosnia. Blowback. Paris. Praise be to Clinton!
Posted by: Gary at November 5, 2005 4:19 AM
Archimedes,
Thanks for those quotes. That post will do more good than you could have ever imagined. It will be found in ALL the email inboxes of my friends and family, and from there be found in the inboxes of thousand and thousands more.
Thank you.
at November 5, 2005 6:07 AM
This sophomoric "analysis" (ie parroting of stock Jewish propaganda) of the causes of the Mid East conflict is one of the worst I've ever read on this site. Great going.
Posted by: spect8or at November 5, 2005 6:41 AM
spect8or writes:
"This sophomoric "analysis" (ie parroting of stock Jewish propaganda) of the causes of the Mid East conflict is one of the worst I've ever read on this site. Great going."
That was the most brilliant demolition of propaganda I've ever seen! With two sentences of
trenchant analysis you've convinced me. What
genius. You must have one of those college degrees!
at November 5, 2005 11:59 AM
Nariz accuses the Right of "hyperbole, distortion, overstatement, scapegoating"...and then goes on to write:
"...were it not for the stupidity, irrational rhetoric, rants and politics of the righteous (and stupid) right."
Thank God for the measured, balanced rationalism of the Left.
Posted by: Cornelius at November 5, 2005 6:14 PM
I back Israel's right to their country but this article leaves out the fact that Jews were outnumbered 10 to one at the time of the Balfour (a Jew) Declaration in 1917 and whitewashes Jewish terrorism leading up to their independence. Maybe the article wasn't balanced. You don't have to back Israel blindly to be anti-jihad.
Posted by: jt at November 5, 2005 6:28 PM
Jews have always lived in the Land of Israel, despite oppression from both Muslims and Christians at different times.
Christians were dhimmis in Israel and so treated by the Muslim rulers and by local Muslims. The local Muslim notables extorted money from the Christians in order to discourage the local Muslim hoi polloi from attacking them.
See at the links below how the Greek Orthodox were treated during the Greek revolt of the 1820s.
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/09/arabs-in-israel-with-ottoman-sultan.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/10/arabs-in-israel-against-greek-revolt.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/10/arab-reaction-in-land-of-israel-to.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/10/arab-reaction-in-land-of-israel-to_11.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/10/repercussions-in-israel-in-1821-of.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/10/repercussions-of-greek-revolt-in-land.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/10/repercussions-of-greek-revolt-in.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/10/repercussions-of-greek-revolt-in_26.html
jt says that Jews were only 10% of the population of Israel in 1917, at the time of the Balfour Declaration. In fact, in 1914, Jews were about 14 or 15% of the population, but about a third of the Jewish population were deported by the Ottoman govt during the 1st World War. Furthermore, the question should be: How did Jews get to be a small part of the population of the country?
-- Before the Crusades, Jews were emigrating due to oppression as dhimmis. At the beginning of Crusader rule, many Jews were massacred by Crusaders. This went for about the first ten years of Crusader rule in the country. After the Crusades, the Mamluk Muslim regime made life very hard for Jews and other dhimmis.
-- It should be borne in mind that before the San Remo conference of 1920, there was no "Palestine" on the ground. Neither the Mamluk nor Ottoman empires had any district or province with the name Filastin or Palestine or with anything like the borders of the Palestine mandate --created in 1920 by the San Remo conference-- to embody the Jewish National Home. The Arab political leadership wanted to be part of the short-lived Syrian kingdom of Faisal the Hashemite. They decided to work for control of the new "Palestine" entity faute de mieux. The Arabs never talked about a "Palestinian people" until the 1960s.
at November 5, 2005 7:12 PM
JT,
I too noticed Robert ommitted the terrorism of the Irgun. But in fairness, he also wrote nothing about Palestinian terror, which has been so much more systemic and deadly.
His neglect of the issue of terrorism can only be interpreted as a gift to the Palestinian side.
Posted by: Cornelius at November 5, 2005 7:35 PM
c, i think he mentioned hamas and says they are terrorist. e the zionist, what of Jewish terrorism is that justified? Shouldn't it be at least mentioned. What of Balfour's Jewishness? Worth mentioning?
Posted by: jt at November 5, 2005 7:59 PM
Praise be Jesus Christ! As usual, I agree with my friend Robert Spencer's understanding of the Islamic threat. However, I must take issue with his statement that "Israel is, of course, a Western-style secular republic that guarantees freedom of religion". In Israel, it is illegal for a Jew to convert to Christianity and a convert may be stripped of citizenship.
Also, the Israeli government is anti-Christian to the core. Right now there are no Christian officers in the Israeli army and no Christian has ever served in an Israeli cabinet. In Alawite controlled Syria, the highest ranked general is an Orthodox Christian but the pro-Israeli neoCons want to destroy the Assad regime and deliver Syria to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Remember, it was the Israelis who first financed the rise of Hamas to counteract the PLO and more especially the Christian dominated PFLP, led by the late George Habash of blessed memory. Remember, it was not the PA but the Israelis who granted permission to buid a large mosque in Manger Square.
I have many Palestinian and Israeli Arab Christian friends who tell me about being spit on by Jews on buses and then threatened by Muslims when they see them wearing crosses.
We Catholics and Orthodox must never forget that the land of Palestine/Israel is itself a sacred relic made holy by the footsteps of Christ God. This means that the heart of every Christian should beat with the desire that the Holy Land again honor Christ in its laws, its government, and its culture. That any government on that sacred land discriminates against our Christian brothers and sisters, should be intolerable to all Christians.
At minimun, a correct policy would be to demand that Israel grant full equal rights to Christians, including the full right of return. This means that Israel must immediately end the special status of Jewish religion and guarantee Christians a minimum of one-third of the seats in the cabinet as well as promoting Christians to positions of authority in the IDF.
If the Jews expect us Christians to see them as allies in the war with Islam, then they must treat Christians with the same respect they expect us to give them. As a Catholic, I must support my Christian brothers and oppose Dhimmitude whether under Muslims or Jews. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
at November 6, 2005 12:29 AM
Thanks to the many fine postings above, I’ve learned a great deal from this thread.
As understand it, the task given to Mr. Spencer was to write an article explaining the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (with a focus on Catholics in the Middle East) for a general audience. Also note that the article had to be brief. Given those conditions, the writer must get right to the heart of the problem, identify the central motivating factor behind the main conflicts and the plight of the Catholics in the region.
As complex as the current situation is, adherence to hard-core Islam is the central factor that is motivating and sustaining the conflict. Unfortunately, it also appears to be the factor that the editors didn't want Robert to write about (even if he quoted from the Hamas Charter itself). Perhaps most editors and publishers are not quite ready to take up residence in Undisclosed Locationville.
at November 6, 2005 2:08 AM
Pravoslavni is the Russian word for "Eastern Orthodox" or Russian Orthodox. But if our correspondent "pravoslavni" says that he is a Catholic, who am I to say otherwise?
Now, as to the status of Christians in Israel, I don't know where pravoslavni gets his info from. There are Arab Christian judges, high ranking police officers, professors, members of Knesset [parliament], etc., in Israel. Now, Christians have long been a small percentage of the population in Israel. They have long been torn --grosso modo-- between those in the Communist orbit, and consequently were pro-Arab nationalism, and those who preferred Israel to Muslim rule and tried to advance within Israeli society. As to Christians in the palestianian authority zones, Rabin and Peres turned over to arafat/PA rule the Christian towns and villages, such as Bethlehem, Beit Jala, etc. But this was done with the eager approval of the Western, that is, Christian governments. So Rabin and Peres in their foolishness were doing what the Western govts, and the EU and the UN wanted Israel to do. Many Christians in BethLehem, etc., did not want arafat rule, neither did informed, sane Israelis want arafat/PA rule anywhere. But decisions are not necessarily in the hands of the informed and the rational. The Bethlehem Christians have suffered in various ways since the arafat/PA takeover. The Israelis too have suffered from the Oslo accords and what flowed from them, from this ostensible effort at "peace-making."
As to Pravoslavni Russia, about one hundred years ago, the Russian imperial official Pobyedonostev expressed the wish that the Jews in Russia would disappear: 1/3 by emigration, 1/3 by conversion, and 1/3 by being killed. Stalin and Hitler took care of most of the killing of more than 1/3 of the Jews in Russia's successor state, the USSR. Today relatively few Jews are left in Russia out of the several million living there one hundred years ago. We do not agree to the demands that pravoslavni poses. I suggest that he study the history of Israel more thoroughly, also paying attention to the Jewish viewpoint.
Posted by: Eliyahu at November 6, 2005 9:04 AM
Pravoslavni: My reply builds upon what Eliyahu has stated and I add that there are 9 members of the Knesset that are Muslim. They are named Mohammad Barakeh, Azmi Bishara, Abdulmalik Dehamshe, Talab El-Sana, Raleb Majadele, Issam Makhoul, Wasil Taha, Ahmad Tibi, and Jamal Zahalka.
Currently there are 2 members of the Knesset who are Druze. Their names are Ayoob Kara and Majalli Whbee.
Not bad for a racist state. Yet, there are NO Jews serving in any of the 22 islamic governments because islamic nations are theocractic dictatorships where the word "democracy" doesn't exist in their lexicon.
And I haven't yet heard of a Jewish official in the Vatican, and even if you are not Roman Catholic, my point it is still relative to your pithy argument.
Now answer me this: How many anti-Zionist Christian groups provided relevant training to Palestinians in a variety of ways?
How many worked to change the dysfunctional and counterproductive aspects of Palestinian behavior, whether it was negative messages from mosques, oppression of homosexuals, or inciteful media?
How many tried to create a court system that revolves around civil rights and includes due process?
How many tried to train counselors, police, or or teachers to respect diversity?
How many tried to prepare Palestinians for reconciliation with Jews?
How many acted as partners in the development of a modern, civil Palestinian society?
How many tried to build an economic infrastructure, beyond casinos, to move Palestinians beyond a sense of "we have nothing to lose"?
The answer to all of the above is None.
I could go on and on, but the pattern is clear to anyone willing to see. Remove your spiritual blinders and do something useful, instead of criticizing Jews and Israel.
There are a lot of muslims out there that need saving; you may start with those who are murdering the Copts in Al Kosheh, Egypt.
Posted by: Smooth at November 6, 2005 9:51 AM
"I too noticed Robert ommitted the terrorism of the Irgun..."
-- from a posting above
What "terrorism" would that be? What deliberate attacks on entirely civilian targets, as opposed to military targets (including that headquarters for the British military, the King David Hotel) were ever deliberately attacked? Were any of the families of British officials in Mandatory Palestine, or anywhere else, ever attacked? Did a bomb go off in London? What "terorrist" attacks by the Irgun are you referring to? The fact that the virulently antisemitic Ernest Begin might use the term about attacks on British soldiers who had not only, after the war, rounded up all the rifles that had been distributed to the Jews for use on the Allied side, and then there was that General Barker, the British military commander, who from a recent study we learn had promised his Arab lover, the widow of George Antonius, that he would love to return to help the Arabs "exterminate the Jews" -- well, the desperate Jews, trying both to rescue people from D.P. camps in Europe, and to fight off the Arabs, and everywhere being stymied by the British who boarded and sent back refugee ships, seized arms the Jews had but did nothing about the Arab arms and, in fact, continued to arm and train three Arab armies (those of Egypt, Transjordan, and Iraq) -- well, that was a war, and the Irgun's bombs were directed at miiitary targets.
The King David Hotel was a military target. The Irgun also phoned in a warning ahead of time, a warning that was ignored. Some civilians, including quite a few Jewish workers, were killed in the bombing -- because the British failed to heed the warning and evacuate.
So much for "terrorism" as currently understood -- the deliberate attempt to terrorize the enemy by inflicting harm on civilians -- by the Irgun.
Posted by: Hugh at November 6, 2005 12:14 PM
I've been to Israel, and I must have missed this
Jews spitting on Christians thing, though I agree that Jews are a bit sensitive on Jews converting out and the Orthodox sect of Judaism has all of the political power. That latter fact annoys quite a few Jews too, so it's not viable fodder
for Christian antisemitism.
One thing I have noticed (forgive me for being very un-PC here) is a marked Arab (Muslim, Christian, Jewish) tendency towards florid overexaggeration. Makes it hard for someone
raised in a WASPy environment to get what's going on. The Truth plays second fiddle to a good story.
at November 6, 2005 12:36 PM
I've been to Israel, and I must have missed this
Jews spitting on Christians thing, though I agree that Jews are a bit sensitive on Jews converting out and the Orthodox sect of Judaism has all of the political power. That latter fact annoys quite a few Jews too, so it's not viable fodder
for Christian antisemitism.
One thing I have noticed (forgive me for being very un-PC here) is a marked Arab (Muslim, Christian, Jewish) tendency towards florid overexaggeration. Makes it hard for someone
raised in a WASPy environment to get what's going on. The Truth plays second fiddle to a good story.
at November 6, 2005 12:36 PM
I agree with Smooth who points out that Israel's Western, Christian critics should expend some humanitarian energy on helping their brethren in faith, the Copts of Egypt [as well as Christians in southern Sudan, etc.].
But I would like to point out that Knesset members Azmi Bishara and Isam Makhoul are Christians, and one or two others may be Christian too. Bishara, whose family name means Gospel, is one of those I was talking about when I said some in the Communist orbit become pro-Arab nationalist.
Posted by: Eliyahu at November 6, 2005 8:03 PM
I appreciate the feedback from Eliyahu, Smooth, and American. As for Christians being spit on, I heard this from a Christian Israeli Arab woman who lived in Tel Aviv and a similar story from a Nazareth born Christian who was travelling in Jerusalem. Both speak fluent Hebrew but were "found out" as Christians when some hyper-Orthodox noticed thier crucifixes. They also say that Arab Christians both in Israel proper and on the West Bank are threatened continually by the Muslims.
This shows me that the original Zionist policy of making no distinction between Palestinian Christians and Muslims was worse than a tragedy, it was a mistake. This missed opportunity for a Christian-Jewish alliance is needed today more than ever but it cannot occur until Israel ends all discrimination against Christians.
My deepest respect remains with my Jewish brothers and sisters but that respect requires that I write truthfully. The worst places for Christians in the Middle East is where Sharia rules. The best places are where Islamic Salafism is suppressed such as Alawite controlled and radically secularist Syria. This doesn't mean that I am pro-Assad, only that the alternative is worse... which is a Syria ruled by the Ikwan.
Beyond that, it is clear that some Likudniks in Israel have an interest in seeing the Palestinians dominated by Hamas. Then they can show the world that it is a "Democratic Western Israel" standing alone against the tide of Islamic extremism. With this goal, the presence of Christian Palestinians just muddies the water. Thus all the Christians are quietly pushed out through discrimination and the lure of Europe or America. This is the situation that I find intolerable.
After, so many Christians lost thier homes or even lives to the terrorism of the Irgun in the forties, they had no choice but to ally with the PLO or even the "leftist" PFLP (although nobody in that group actually believed in Marxism and would often loudly criticize the socialist ideology of early Zionism). These people were mostly from the class of small shopkeepers.
Today, the Christians of Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Sudan, Turkey,(and soon perhaps Syria and Lebanon)face extinction as sure and complete as any planned genocide in history. Who is there to defend them? Russia lies broken after 70 years of Communism, while Serbia and Greece are too small and weak to have an impact. As for the United States or Western Europe...No one can even be sure which side they'll be on tommorow. The warning of scripture to "Put not your faith in princes" has never been more appropriate.
So my failure to make an overt distinction between Catholic and Orthodox Christians was a conscious choice. The disunity of Christendom was the cause of our retreat in the face of Islamic expansionism. Therefore we Orthodox and Catholic faithful must begin to see ourselves as united now and maybe our bishops and patriarchs will get the message.
Oh, the quote by one insignificant Russian official from a hundred years ago is a red herring. Relations between Jews and Christians have been strained since Saul of Tarsus, and all of us must repent of hatred and prejudice in our hearts.
The fact is that the survival of both the Christians and Jews of the Middle East reqire making some basic changes in how we treat each other. The Christian communities of Egypt, Iraq, etc. cry out to us... and yes this includes the Christians of Israel and Palestine. The the same time, the very survival of the State of Israel is threatened by the same viscious enemy.
Whether, this can cause a change in Israeli policy so this alliance can happen is up to Israel. Like I wrote earlier, "the enemy of my enemy is not neccesarily my friend"... but in today's situation, we sure should be friends!
at November 7, 2005 12:10 AM
Eiyahu is correct about Azmi Bishara and Isam Makhoul but Christians in the Knesset have usually been elected on an Arab nationalist or (Heaven-help-us) a Communist ticket. This is not the same as community representation. Even Iran guarantees a couple of seats in the Majlis for the Christians but nobody would say that Christians have iny freedom in Iran
A better situation is Syria, where the Patriarchs of the various Eastern Churches sit as members of the Senate. Of course, the ideal was the community power sharing arrangement in Lebanon, forty years ago. Of course it fell apart, due to outside meddling and Islam's inabilty to accept equal status with dhimmis.
That would not be the case in a community power-sharing arangement between Christians and Jews in Israel/Palestine. Unlike George W. Bush's fantasy of Islam, Christianity and Judaism have been shown to be peace-loving.
I'm not advocating that the Christian minority in Israel and the West Bank recieve half the seats or anything like that. Ony that full Christian equality and equal status under the Israeli Constitution would create an Israel that was more secure for Jews and a strong presence that could be the protective agent for Christians, Jews, Sabaens, Ismailis, Bahai and other oppressed minority communities in the region.
Posted by: Provoslavni at November 7, 2005 12:29 AM
many thanks Hugh, for that response post on "Jewish terrorism".
One would thimk that exposing the myths of Deir Yassin would also be a worthwhile post on this site. It is often quoted by those who would denigrate Israel.
at November 7, 2005 1:45 AM
To the kind poster immediately above --
It is exhausting to go over again and again the same points. Anyone at all can, if he wishes, go to the history books and find out about the targets -- the non-civilian targets -- of the Irgun. Anyone, for that matter, can probably retrieve on-line the Ottoman-era cadastral records, to find out what percentage of the land in the Ottoman vilayets that became Mandatory Palestine were owwed by the state, or by private parties, and if private parties, by which institutions (such as churches) and which by locals, and which of those locals could be described as "Arabs" and which not.
And as for Deir Yassin, I thought the mythology surrounding that business had been permanently put paid to quite a while ago. Apparently one has to keep re-presenting the facts, but it really makes no difference. Those who want to believe in Israeli "atrocities" will do so and nothing will stop them. It's an Article of Faith.
Well, to err is human, and to correct -- divine. But I'm tired of being so damn divine. I want to sit down and read Geoffrey Tillotson's little book "On the Poetry of Pope," and then finish the collected prose of Philip Larkin, beginning with the one I began last night, Larkin's short piece on Housman's annotations in his own copy of Palgrave's "Treasury" (the one covering Victorian England, and lent to Larkin by John Sparrow, he of All Souls and Latin lapidary inscriptions, who bought the book at Sotheby's in 1936). Yes, I'm just dying to find out what made Housman draw a vertical line right down 7 of the 17 poems by Arthur O'Shaugnessy included in the Palgrave anthology , and I don't give a damn right now in vainly trying to clear up some antisemitic libelling, of the kind that has no end, of inoffensive, far-too-generous-and-trusting Israel.
Posted by: Hugh at November 7, 2005 2:53 PM
Provoslavni:
If the Israelis viewed the local Christian population as being no different from the Muslims, it might be because that's the way the local Christian population wanted it. Palestine's Christians hated and resented the Jewish immigrants 80 years ago and I'd hazard a guess that the majority continue to do so. The notorious ISM was founded by Christian Palestinians and then there's the Sabeel organization headed by the leader of the Palestinian Anglican Church, also major contributors to the "divestment" movement and general propaganda against Israel.
What hasn't emerged from the Palestinian Christian population, to the best of my knowledge, is suicide bombers.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 7, 2005 3:47 PM
Waterdragon52
Having lived under dhimmitude for so long, most Christias actually welcomed the Jews during the late 19th and early 20th Century. Even under the British Mandate, the majority of Palestinian Christians lived peacefully with both thier Jewish and Muslim neighbors. That all changed in 1948 when many Christians lost their farms, homes and businesses to a Zionism that made no distinction among Arabs. Christians, living under the same discrimination as thier Muslim neighbors naturally came to identify with their common plight. Today, they are trapped between Israeli discrimination on one side and Muslim hatred on the other.
Let's face it, nothing can change the Muslims, but the Israelis have a real opportunity to forge an alliance. This could be started with a few initiatives.
1. End all discrimination against Israeli Arab Christians. They should be treated exactly the same a Jewish Israelis.
2. As Israel slowly disingages from the West Bank, it ought to do everything to restore properties taken from Christians, whether by Jews or Muslims. This is especially true of Ramallah, which used to be an almost totally Christian city but is now overwhelmingly Muslim.
3. Christians on the West Bank should be given a choice between citizenship in the PA or in Israel. Palestinian Christians and thier children now living abroad, should have the full right of return to thier original lands in Israel and on the West Bank.
Under these conditions, a newly returned Palestinian Christian majority in Ramallah and Bethlehem may just opt for union with Israel. If the Muslims don't like it...so what?
Lastly, Israel should stop trying to co-opt radical Muslims. If instead, Israel became the defender of Copts and Assyrians and other Christian minorities, they might just be able to overcome the self-destructive policies of the past and help create a secure future for both Jews and Christians across the Middle East.
at November 7, 2005 10:28 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.)