"It would be negative and even “disastrous” if the EU completely halted its payments to the Palestinians. If the problems in Palestine grew, it would weaken the moderates in Arab countries and strengthen the extremists, she [Marvat Tallawy] maintained."
-- from the article above

It would be "disastrous" if Infidels continue to pay what is essentially Jizyah to "Palestiian" Arabs. Billions have been given already. Some of those billions disappeared when Arafat died, into the hands of Suha Arafat, Abbas himself, and all the other members of the dutiful retinue. How do think their children can live in the West, go to school in the West, enjoy flats in southern France (remember that apartment in --where was it? Cannes? -- that As Saiqa leader Zuheir Mohsein had been living in?). There never should have been any Infidel aid to either the "Palestinian" Arabs, merely the local shock troops of the Lesser Jihad, nor to Egypt, from which the advice-dispenser above comes, nor to Jordan, nor to Pakistan.

Let the rich Muslims, who take in billions every single day now without lifting a finger (the Westerners who lift that crude do all the work for them), who have been the recipients of some $10 trillion dollars since 1973, supply whatever aid is to be given to the permanently unviable (economically, politcally, morally) "Palestinian" territories carved out of the very small sliver of land that the League of Nations, and its Mandates Commission, intended for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.

It is important for Infidels to break with the idea that they owe Muslims. They don't. It is absurd. It is important for them to force Muslims to understand that the days of Jizyah, however disguised, however plausibly demanded, are over. They are on their own. They must figure out what it is about inshallah-fatalism, and 1350 years of relying on the protection-racket money of Jizyah supplied by non-Muslims, that has prevented them all from learning to establish modern economies.

No Jizyah. Not when the "Palestinians" are outraged, not when 10 of the ll members of OPEC are Arab or Muslim, and the recipients of the greatest transfer of wealth -- all of it unmerited -- in human history.

Posted by: Hugh at June 27, 2006 12:17 PM

"It would be negative and even “disastrous” if the EU completely halted its payments to the Palestinians."

When did aid become payments?

Posted by: ShortBoard Surfer at June 27, 2006 12:23 PM

Islam has had 1400 years worth of "chances".....

The song remains the same: Kill, maim, hold captive, convert, enforce special tax, and above all else, blame everyone but themselves for their many shortcomings.

Posted by: DCWatson at June 27, 2006 12:55 PM

We could give them a chance to govern. Find a little area in the desert. Just take out the women and children and let them at each other. They can govern each other to death.

Posted by: freewoman at June 27, 2006 1:55 PM

Hugh writes: "There never should have been any Infidel aid to...Egypt...."

While I agree we shouldn't aid the Palestinians as long as Hamas is in power, U.S. aid to Egypt is a different story entirely. The commitment of U.S. aid to both Egypt and Israel was a major component of the peace deal between Egypt and Israel that President Carter negotiated in 1978. That peace treaty ended the 30 year state of war between Egypt and Israel. And by pigeonholing the Egyptian army, it helped promote peace throughout that entire region.

If Jimmy Carter had taken Hugh's advice about no aid to Egypt, that Egypt-Israel peace treaty might not have been signed and the world would have been much worse off for it.

Even if a more "moderate" Palestinian regime takes over from Hamas, I expect that any peace agreement between that regime and Israel will also have to be include massive U.S. aid to both sides as a quid pro quo for peace. Otherwise it won't happen.

Posted by: Steven L. at June 27, 2006 2:20 PM

"While I agree we shouldn't aid the Palestinians as long as Hamas is in power, U.S. aid to Egypt is a different story entirely. The commitment of U.S. aid to both Egypt and Israel was a major component of the peace deal between Egypt and Israel that President Carter negotiated in 1978. That peace treaty ended the 30 year state of war between Egypt and Israel. And by pigeonholing the Egyptian army, it helped promote peace throughout that entire region.

If Jimmy Carter had taken Hugh's advice about no aid to Egypt, that Egypt-Israel peace treaty might not have been signed and the world would have been much worse off for it.

Even if a more "moderate" Palestinian regime takes over from Hamas, I expect that any peace agreement between that regime and Israel will also have to be include massive U.S. aid to both sides as a quid pro quo for peace. Otherwise it won't happen."
-- from a posting just above

You don't see what is wrong, crazily wrong, with what you have written, with what it implies?

Let me spell it out. You are saying that Sadat's Egypt, the loser in wars with Israel, not only should have been given the entire Sinai (in three tranches), along with the three main airbases built to Western standards by the Israelis, the oilfields the Israelis discovered and were beginning to exploit, the roads -- all of this amounting to some $16 billion, but that it would not have made "Peace" (i.e., the kind of Peace that a Muslim state can make -- the Peace that Muhammad made with the Meccans at Al-Hudaibiyyah) unless, in addition to all that, in addition to the victor, Israel having to sue for peace with Egypt, over which Israel had been victorious in 1973 (and indeed, had it not been for the shallow and ignorant Kissinger, who rescued Egypt's Third Army, the victory would have made a greater impression on the Arabs generally -- and they need such lessons, at intervals between the wars, to make those intervals longer) had it not been promised large amounts of American aid.

What does this tell us about the nature of that peace, and the nature of Egypt's commitment? Have you forgotten that Egypt, while receiving the entire Sinai from Israel and those billions in improvements, had commitments of its own? Those commitments were not tangible, like the land and oil and airfields in the Sinai. No, all Egypt had to do was to refrain from hostile propaganda, to start treating the Israelis with semi-decency, to cease the endless campaigns of vilification, to treat Israel as no longer an enemy but, as the treacly phrase has it, "a partner for peace." Well, did Egypt do that? Did Egypt encourage Egyptians to visit Israel, or did it discourage them and even prevent them from doing so, or punish them if they did? Did Egypt stop its propaganda campaign against Israel, or has it in the years since promoted, at every level, vilification including copes of "Mein Kampf" and the television series based on "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? Did Mubarak ever accept any of the invitations to visit Israel, or did he refuse, save for one one-day visit briefly across the border because the Americans insisted? Does the Egyptian press, do official Egyptian media, or the unofficial media under the government's heavy thumb (ask what happens if anyone dares to mention Mubarak's son, and the plans for him), show any signs ever of even beginnning to discuss Israel with any decency? It does not. Egypt failed completely to keep its side of the bargain. No surprise. The Americans, that is Carter and Brzezinski, had no intention of pressing Egypt, and no one has since. The Camp David Accords pushed by Carter down Begin's throat -- Begin who did not know what was happening to him, was incapable of, was not allowed to, was prevented at every turn from making his case, as the entire country rolled over and played dead, at Carter and Brzezinski's malevolent and unsympathetic-to-Israel insistence, before the outrageous demands of smiling, swastika-motif on his tie and all, Anwar Sadat -- Saint Sadat, as far as many Americans, including those who keep thinking of themselves, quite incorrectly I'm afraid, as "pro-Israeli."

What does "pigeonholing the Egyptian army" mean? I don't know what it means. If you think the Egyptian army has not been re-arming, you are wrong. In 2004 the third largest buyer of foreign weaponry, after China and India, was Egypt. Impoverished Egypt, Egypt that needed that American aid, spent $7.5 billion on foreign weapons that year. Why? To fight the Sudanese? To protect themselves from Colonel Qaddafy? What, exactly?

And are you aware that Egyptians were collaborating with Iraqis on weapons development, and that information about that only came to light after the American invasion of Iraq? Are you aware of the double role being played by Egypt in Gaza, where Egyptians have allowed for years all kinds of weaponry to be smuggled in (they hardly made a move to stop it)--all during the time of this "peace treaty" that apparently impresses you.

The "peace" such as it is between Egypt and Isral is maintained for the same reason that without an absurd "treaty" peace is maintained between Egypt and Israel. Fear, on the part of the Arab side, of the consequences if they make war, or if they threaten warlike actions, because their own primitive populations will then agitate and possibly force them to make good on threats. And if that happens, and if Israel again wins the Sinai (now seen by the Egyptians as a place to irrigate and develop for agricultural purposes), it will never ever give it up again. The same thing keeps the peace with both countries -- the IDF.

This business of a "peace treaty" between Israel and the "Palestinians" -- Slow or Fast or In-between Jihadists -- shows me that you apparently chose to ignore the hundreds of postings here about Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, and especially about the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya. Are you still of the opinion that a "treaty" by Muslims made with Infidels is worth anything more than being seen as a temporarry truce which they are not only permitted to, but have a duty to violate the minute they, the Muslim side, becomes strong enough to attack? If you haven't learned that, then you have not been reading with care. Go get a copy of Majid Khadduri's "War and Peace in Islam" and read it, for god's sake. And take it seriously.

The idea that the Infidels, the Americans are to bribe the "Palestinians" into a hudna is absurd, and the complacency with which you allude to this "quid pro quo" -- what quid pro quo is that? The "Palestinian" Arabs are doing no one any favors. They deserve nothing. There are 22 Arab states. They can go there if they wish. If they stay, they can be granted the maximum amount of autonomy consonant with Israel's security. That's it.

Posted by: Hugh at June 27, 2006 2:43 PM

I fully agree with Hugh. No more jizyah to Islamic states. What has all the monetary generosity to the Palestinians by Israel, the US and Europe achieved there? The voting in of a radical Hamas dedicated to the destruction of Israel and all non-muslim influence in Palestine. If this jizyah is supposed to strenghthen moderates in Palestine, why do they elect an even more radical group to run their affairs?

All this talk of Islamic moderates is such nonsense anyway. A moderate Muslim is simply one who hasn't started killing for Allah. Yet.

Posted by: Proud Infidel at June 27, 2006 3:28 PM

The same (not only shallow and ignorant but) evil Kissinger also convinced Nixon to back the genocidal butcher Yahya Khan in 1971, in a conflict between Pakistan and India that was instigated by Pakistan. The Indian armed forces were about to overrun and wipe out Pakistan's army, if it weren't for Nixon's and Kissinger's intervention, for narrow political reasons, as they considered India to be too close to Russia. And later, when Indhira Gandhi came to the U.S. to speak to Nixon, she met with a cold, hostile reception.

Kissinger was (and still is) a self-confident ignoramus with a deep voice who knows very little history, has no morals, no conscience, and seeks only the thrill and intrigue of playing with international power. He created a whole school of neo-con thought, starting with Bush Sr., his faithful apprentice during the 70's, and ending with hundreds of influential Kissinger-clones sitting in the CFR, the White House, and Congress.

Posted by: US_infidel at June 27, 2006 3:40 PM

StevenL, why do we in Israel need a "peace agreement" with the PLO, with those Arabs now fashionably called "Palestinians"? We have been there already. We have done that. We made "deals" and concessions and there were hugs and a handshake on the White House Lawn. Nothing good came out of it except that some folks, not all, learned something from the experience. Thousands of people on both sides have been killed in warfare or murdered in terrorist attacks [by Arabs] since the Oslo Peace. Don't you remember your Orwell, Peace Is War?

Why are the so-called moderates preferable to the extremists? Are the two groups really so different one from the other? Maybe most of the moderates are just more hypocritical than the extremists, but aiming at the same goal.
By the way, the ludicrous Olmert hugged abu mazen at a meeting in Jordan just a few days before the Hamas attack that ended in two soldiers being killed after being taken prisoner and a third soldier being kidnapped, and --MAYBE-- still alive, while the loathesome Hamas want to make even info as to whether he is still alive the object of bargaining.

Posted by: Eliyahu at June 27, 2006 6:24 PM

US_infidel, you are absolutely right to hold Kissenger and his cohorts in contempt, but I don't think you can credit him with founding the current school of American 'neo-con' thought. As far as I can see from here in the UK, the present White House administration is about as far removed from previous American governments as it is possible to get. Can you seriously imagine any previous president (including Reagan, one of the greatest of them all) having the balls to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan AND THEN remove Saddam from power? Somehow, I can't quite see it, no matter how great a threat both regimes posed to civilisation.

Bush Jnr is surely to be commended for attempting to deal with this problem in a completely different way. His attempt to create democratic government in Iraq (based upon the rule of law, freedom of speech, and fundamental human rights for everyone) is probably the last chance we have to avoid World War Three. If it succeeds, it will massively destabalise the tin-pot dictatorships that have festered in the Arab world for far too long, and prove to their inhabitants that there is an attractive alternative to either secular tyranny or 'fundamental islam'. If it fails...well, as far as I can see, we're all pretty well f*ck*d.

I realise that, as a US citizen who lives with the reality of the Bush administration every day, you might have some greater insight into this than me. But it seems to me that we had all better start praying that Bush turns out to have been right about Iraq.

Posted by: enemyofislam at June 27, 2006 6:44 PM

"..Islamists should be given a chance to govern, Egypt’s Executive Secretary of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for West Asia (Unescwa), Marvat Tallawy, said on Tuesday..."

Let me take a wild guess: Could Marvat Tallawy be a Muslim?
Could it be that he shamelessly pushes the Mohammedan agenda?

Could it be that he IS a member of the Muslim brotherhood?

It seems only the US-administration and the Eurabians have trouble to connect the dots.

Seven L's writing above reflects the total incomprehension of the respective US governments, refusal to understand the fundamentals of Arab imperialism, the ME and the Mohammedan mindset. Hughs thorough rebuttal is worth saving on the harddrive!

US infidel:

Kissinger simply represents Arab interests.. He is well paid by the Saudi's and he sells his law-offices services to the highest bidder. Because of conflict of interest he could not partake in the 9/11 commission. But you know that former presidents Clitman and Peanut Khadr have also sold their services to the Saudis, and the Bush-clan are not above that either. Reagan may have not been such a sucker, but why bother to dig him up again?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 27, 2006 7:46 PM

No.

Posted by: pythagoras at June 27, 2006 8:41 PM

Give them a chance to do what, slit your throat? Wonder how much they paid him? Oh wait, he's a muslim, they probably already have him on the payroll.....

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at June 27, 2006 10:03 PM

And this from a woman! Is she totally idiotic or just evil? How can she not know that under sharia she would be lucky to have any education, no chance of a senior public position?

Aaaggghhhh!!

Posted by: Lili at June 28, 2006 12:23 AM

People as stupid,psychotic and dangergous as these UN officials need to be relocated to an insane asylum or an internment camp growing organic vegetables and doing knitting for the duration of the looming conflict with Islame.

Posted by: abdulalshirk at June 28, 2006 12:52 AM

Golly! Do people really think that both Republicans and Democrats [clinton-carter and bush & co.] are available for purchase by Our Good Friends the Saudis? I thought that liberals and conservatives were different from each other, maybe like Sunnis from Shi`is.

Posted by: Eliyahu at June 28, 2006 6:19 AM

"Islamists should be given a chance to govern"

They were. Across the globe throughout all of 1350 years. No problems for islamists. But they annihilated all non - islamists.

"It would be negative and even “disastrous” if the EU completely halted its payments to the Palestinians. If the problems in Palestine grew, it would weaken the moderates in Arab countries and strengthen the extremists, she maintained"

Why do the Christians and the Hindus and the Buddhists do not need payments from the EU ? Why the "moderates" in these countries are not weakened ? The problem is exclusive to islam.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 28, 2006 8:59 AM

Israel's "cold-peace" with Egypt has certainly been a disappointment, particularly as it concerns 1) Egyptian state-run media incitement against Israel and America and 2) the paucity of trade and other contacts between Egypt and the Jewish state.

But let's not blind ourselves to the over-riding benefits that the peace has brought. In the 29 years between the birth of Israel in 1948 and Sadat's trip to Jerusalem in 1977, the Israelis were forced to fight 4 major wars of survival against the Arab/Muslim world. In the 29 years since Sadat's initiative, the have been NO major Arab-Israeli wars.

Israel defeated Syria over the skies of Lebanon in 1982 and lost to Hezbollah in protracted conflict over the ensuing 18 years of occupation in southern Lebanon. But neither conflict could even remotely qualify as an existential threat to Israel, the way the October War in 1973 was.

And let there be no mistake about the October War. Golda Meir's plea for Nixon to "Save Israel" was not a contrivance. The early days of the war were indeed devestating for the Israelis, where Syrian armor attacks pierced Israel's defenses in the Golan...and where the Israeli attempt to beat back the Egyptian crossing of the Suez resulted in the loss of scores of aircraft at the hands of Soviet-operated anti-aircraft missile batteries.

Over 2000 of Israel's finest were killed in the war. Thousands more were wounded. There was hardly a family in Israel that wasn't effected. Battlefield fortunes changed, but only after a massive US airlift, the likes of which hadn't been seen since Berlin in 1948. In the aftermath, one Israeli general was quoted as saying "Israel cannot afford another Yom Kippur War."

In essence, Camp David meant the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the beginning of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No supporter of the Jewish state could possibly perceive this change in equation as anything but advantageous for Israel.

Posted by: Cornelius at June 28, 2006 11:15 AM