Islam itself has created generation upon generation of hate filled, murderous maniacs.

Posted by: moderationist at July 28, 2006 7:05 AM

Has anyone ever met a muslim that does'nt hate Jews?

Posted by: eloivsdiablo at July 28, 2006 9:16 AM

Oldie but Goodie:

Dear World, I understand that you are upset by us, here in Israel. Indeed, it appears that you are quite upset, even angry. (Outraged?) Indeed, every few years you seem to become upset by us. Today, it is the "brutal repression of the Palestinians"; yesterday it was Lebanon; before that it was the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Baghdad and the Yom Kippur War and the Sinai campaign. It appears that Jews who triumph and who, therefore, live, upset you most extraordinarily.

Of course, dear world, long before there was an Israel, we - the Jewish people - must have upset you. We apparently upset a German people who elected Hitler and upset an Austrian people who cheered his entry into Vienna and we upset a whole slew of Slavic nations - Poles, Slovaks, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Russians, Hungarians and Romanians.

And we go back a long, long way in the history of world upset. We upset the Cossacks of Chmielnicki who massacred in 1648-49; we upset the Crusaders who, on their way to liberate the Holy Land, were so upset at Jews that they slaughtered untold numbers of us.

For centuries, we upset a Roman Catholic Church that did its best to define our relationship through inquisitions, and we upset the arch-enemy of the church, Martin Luther, who, in his call to burn the synagogues and the Jews within them, showed an admirable Christian ecumenical spirit.

And it is because we became so upset over upsetting you, dear world, that we decided to leave you - in a manner of speaking - and we supported the establishment of a Jewish state. The reasoning was that living in close contact with you, as resident-strangers in the various countries that comprise you, we upset you, irritate you and disturb you. What better notion, then, than to leave you (and thus love you)- and possibly have you love us and so, we decided to come home - home to the same land from which we were driven out 1,900 years earlier by a Roman world that, apparently, we also upset.

Alas, dear world, it appears that you are hard to please. Having left you and your pogroms and inquisitions and crusades and holocausts, having taken our leave of the general world to live alone in our own little state, we continue to upset you. You are upset that we repress the poor Palestinians. You are deeply angered over the fact that we do not give up the lands of 1967, which are clearly the obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Moscow is upset and Washington is upset. The "radical" Arabs are upset and the gentle Egyptian moderates are upset.

Well, dear world, consider the reaction of a normal Jew from Israel. In 1920 and 1921 and 1929, there were no territories of 1967 to impede peace between Jews and Arabs. Indeed, there was no Jewish State to upset anybody. Nevertheless, the same oppressed and repressed "Palestinians" (technically since Palestine didn't exist before 1948 there were no Palestinians prior to 1948, but that's another story) slaughtered tens of Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa, Safed and Hebron. Indeed, 67 Jews were slaughtered one day in Hebron in 1929.

Dear world, why did the Arabs - the "Palestinians" - massacre 67 Jews in one day in 1929? Could it have been their anger over Israeli aggression in 1967? And why were 510 Jewish men, women and children slaughtered in Arab riots between 1936-39? Was it because Arabs were upset over 1967? And when you, dear world, proposed a UN Partition Plan in 1947 that would have created a "Palestinian State" alongside a tiny Israel and the Arabs cried "no" and went to war and killed 6,000 Jews - was that "upset" caused by the aggression of 1967? And, by the way, dear world, why did we not hear your cry of "upset" then?

The poor Palestinians who today kill Jews with explosives and firebombs and stones are part of the same people who - when they had all the territories they now demand be given to them for their state - attempted to drive the Jewish state into the sea. The same twisted faces, the same hate, the same cry of "itbach-al- yahud" (Massacre the Jew!) that we hear and see today, were seen and heard then. The same people, the same dream - destroy Israel. What they failed to do yesterday, they dream of doing today, but we should not "repress" them.

Dear world, you stood by during the holocaust and you stood by in 1948 as seven states launched a war that the Arab League proudly compared to the Mongol massacres. You stood by in 1967 as Nasser, wildly cheered by wild mobs in every Arab capital in the world, vowed to drive the Jews into the sea. And you would stand by tomorrow if Israel were facing extinction. And since we know that the Arabs and Palestinians dream daily of that extinction, we will do everything possible to remain alive in our own land. If that bothers you, dear world, well - think of how many times in the past you bothered us.

In any event, dear world, if you are bothered by us, here is one Jew in Israel who could not care less.

Posted by: Ben-Hur at July 28, 2006 9:33 AM

"United Nations humanitarian chief Jan Egeland accused Israel on Wednesday of committing "catastrophic mistakes" in its attack on Hizbullah, which have caused civilian casualties and alienated the Lebanese public."

Queries for Mr. Egeland:

1. The war started when Hezbollah, which is a part of the Lebanese government, invaded Israel, murdered 8 people and kidnapped two others. Was this a "catastrophic mistake" that alienated the Israeli public? If not, why not?

2. You say this will create a "generation of hate." Are you seriously suggesting Israel was not already the object of hate?

3. You feel obliged to issue the pro forma statement that you are a "friend" of Israel. Can you explain how blaming the victim is an expression of friendship?

Posted by: Howard, Fine & Howard at July 28, 2006 9:35 AM

There will be those who hate 'the other' so much, that unless you believe as they do in their hatreds, they will kill you. This was the war fought against the Nazis. Now a new war is on again, same principle, this time against Islamic Jihad. Mr. Egeland doesn't get it.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at July 28, 2006 10:34 AM

All this talk of "international humanitarian standards" and the Geneva Convention pisses me off. If any of these 20-something reporters had bothered to read the Geneva Convention, they would have seen that enemy combatants not in uniform, or otherwise not identifiable as enemy combatants, are not covered under the Convention (and that includes POW rights). In addition, the Convention states that enemy combatants who hide among or shoot from civilian populations are RESPONSIBLE for any reprisals that may affect that civilian population, and that the opposing force is indeed allowed, under international law, to return that fire.

These idiots are killing us.

Posted by: Know Your Enemy at July 28, 2006 11:11 AM

Ben-Hur very well expressed.
Know your enemy - Thanks for pointing out the Geneva convention's clearly stated position on enemy combattants out of uniform. If memory serves, U.S. forces in WWII dealt rather harshly with SS and Wehrmacht troops captured out of uniform.

Posted by: MP at July 28, 2006 1:08 PM

Jan Egelund sounds like a Scandinavian. And the Scandinavian countries, except Finland, are fast disappearing down the Islamist plughole, and of those countries, only Finland has recent experience of fighting a massive war - the Winter War against the Soviet Union in the winter of 1939/40, sending 250,000 Soviet soldiers to their graves. Fjordman constantly reminds us of how Norway, Sweden and Denmark are becoming increasingly lawless thanks to Muslim immigration, and Egelund is a typical product of the moral-equivalence political correctness culture of that part of Europe. And like the average native citizen of these countries, knows as much about Islam and Jihad as our cat. And as for catastrophic mistakes, the most catastrophic mistake Israel could make would be to turn the other cheek, just like Egelund and his fellow antisemites at the UN wanted it to do.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at July 28, 2006 1:16 PM

Egeland is an idiot. A couple of years ago he denounced Americans as stingy at a UN assembly, not knowing that the amount of international charity Americans donate exceeds the figure he cited by more than 300%. It never occurred to this moron to check his sources before badmouthing someone--he just opened his trap before the whole world.

Don't listen to anything this guy says. 'Empty heads make the most noise'(goes an old bromide)--and Egeland should know (in fact that's about the only thing he could possibly know).

Posted by: pythagoras at July 28, 2006 1:29 PM

pythagoras says "Don't listen to anything this guy says. 'Empty heads make the most noise'(goes an old bromide)--and Egeland should know (in fact that's about the only thing he could possibly know)."

Clearly, he doesn't even know that.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at July 28, 2006 1:47 PM

Jan Egeland used to be the foreign secretary of Norway during Labor Party government of Gro-Harlem Brundtland if I remember right.

Otherwise, he seems like a typical leftist bureaucrat who enjoys moral posturing and likes to pose in front of TV cameras.

And Finland is no hope for Scandinavia. Even though the number of muslim immigrants is much lower than in the other Nordic countries, the reason for this is more to do with the remote location combined with the traditionally suspicious attitude towards foreigners.

Currently, Finland acts as the EU chairman country. This means that Finnish Foreign Secretary Erkki Tuomioja (Social Democrats) is acting on behalf of the EU in the Israel-Lebanon crisis. However, this man is way out of his depth here. Besides, he has expressed some fairly outspoken anti-Israeli opinions in the past and the Israelis certainly don't hold him in high regard.

Finns certainly fought against the Soviets in the WWII. However, this was followed by a period called "Finlandization", during which Finland cooperated very closely with the Soviet Union without embracing the socialist system. With this context it would be very easy for Finland to become a Dhimmi country without actually accepting a large number of muslim immigrants.

Posted by: Saatanan Islam at July 28, 2006 2:20 PM

Know Your Enemy writes:

All this talk of "international humanitarian standards" and the Geneva Convention pisses me off. If any of these 20-something reporters had bothered to read the Geneva Convention, they would have seen that enemy combatants not in uniform, or otherwise not identifiable as enemy combatants, are not covered under the Convention (and that includes POW rights).

Didn't you read about the recent Supreme Court ruling Hamdan v. Rumsfeld? (It was the lead story in all the newspapers for days.) To the delight of liberals everywhere, the four liberals on the Supreme Court combined with Justice Stevens to rule that Geneva Convention Article 3 applies to captured al-Qaeda terrorists. The immediate effect was to disallow Bush's plans for military tribunals for terrorists. But the ruling was worded broadly enough that it may apply to all treatment of captured terrorists. That means no coercive interrogations anymore, regular visits by the Red Cross, and all the other humane treatments accorded by Geneva.

It's a very controversial ruling, with lots of tortured reasoning, and I don't want to restart the discussion about it all over again. Suffice it to say that once again, liberal judges have pulled some new rights out of their butts.

Posted by: Steven L. at July 28, 2006 3:22 PM

Howard, Fine and Howard:

A little trip back in history -- Oct. 2000, when Hezbollah also kidnapped and murdered a few Israeli soldiers and the extent to which UNFIL and the UN fulfilled their peace-keeping duties.

This item was posted on frontpagemag.com a week ago (July 21), but the source is the volokh.com website:

UNITED NATIONS AN ACCOMPLICE IN HEZBOLLAH KIDNAPPING

After Hezbollah's kidnapping of a pair of Israeli soldiers spurred an Israeli counter-attack, many critics of Israel actions have suggested that the United Nations can serve as a buffer between Israel and Hezbollah. To the contrary, the United Nations has a well-established record of collaboration with Hezbollah in the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers.

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has been deployed since 1978, not long after Israel first entered Lebanon in pursuit of PLO terrorists. UNIFIL was created pursuant to Security Council Resolution 425, for the purpose of "confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area." Quite obviously UNFIL has utterly failed to achieve the Security Council's objectives, either before or after Israel's 2000 complete withdrawal from Lebanon. One reason is that UNIFIL does not interdict Hezbollah attacks on Israel. Instead, UNIFIL allows Hezbollah to set up positions next to UNFIL units, in effect using UNIFIL as human shields against Israeli counterstrikes. (Aluf Benn, Israel accuses UN of collaborating with Hezbollah," Haaretz, Sept. 11, 2005.)

UNIFIL's most notorious collaboration with terrorists involved the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli soldiers, and the subsequent cover-up.

On October 7, 2000, Hezbollah terrorists entered Israel, attacked three Israeli soldiers on Mount Dov, and abducted them Lebanon. The kidnapping was witnessed by several dozen UNIFIL soldiers who stood idle. One of the soldier witnesses described the kidnapping: the terrorists set of an explosive which stunned the Israeli soldiers. Clad in UN uniforms, the terrorists called out, "Come, come, we’ll help you."

The Israeli soldiers approached the men in UN uniforms. Then, a Hezbollah bomb detonated--apparently prematurely. It wounded the disguised Hezbollah commander, and three Israeli soldiers.

Two other terrorists in U.N. uniforms dragged their Hezbollah commander and the three wounded soldiers into a getaway car.

According an Indian solider in UNIFIL who witnessed the kidnapping, "By this stage, there was a big commotion and dozens of UN soldiers from the Indian brigade came around." The witness stated that the brigade knew that the kidnappers in UN uniform were Hezbollah. One soldiers said that the brigade should arrest the Hezbollah, but the brigade did nothing.

According to the Indian soldier, the UNFIL brigade in the area "could have prevented the kidnapping."

"I’m very sorry about what happened, because we saw what happened," he said. Hezbollah "were wearing our uniforms and it was too bad we didn’t stop them."

It appears that at least four of the UNIFIL "peacekeepers," all from India, has received bribes from Hezbollah in order to assist the kidnapping by helping them get to the kidnapping spot and find the Israeli soldiers. Some of the bribery involved alcohol and Lebanese women.

The Indian brigade later had a bitter internal argument, as some members complained that the brigade had betrayed its peacekeeping mandate. An Indian government investigation sternly criticized the brigade's conduct.

There is evidence of far greater payments by Hezbollah to the UNIFIL Indian brigade, including hundreds of thousands of dollars for assistance in the kidnapping and cover-up.

The UN cover-up began almost immediately.

Lebanon's The Daily Star reported the story told by a former officer of the Observer Group Lebanon (OGL), which is part of the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO). ("UN 'destroyed' evidence after abduction of 3 Israeli troops," The Daily Star, July 20, 2001.)

A few hours after the kidnapping, UNTSO learned that two abandoned cars had been discovered. One was a white Nissan Pathfinder with fake UN insignia; it had hit an embankment because it was being driven so fast that the driver missed a turn. The other was a Range Rover; it was missing a tire rim, and was still running when it was discovered.

Rather than using the very-recently-abandoned vehicles as clues to rescue the kidnap victims, the UN initiated a cover-up. The next morning, eighteen hours after the kidnapping, a team of OGL and the Indian UNIFIL began removing the contents of the cars.

The Range Rover was soaked with blood. Among the contents of the vehicles may have been a cell phone belonging to the terrorists. The UNTSO officer confirmed that the cars contained "extremely sensitive" items which included "current and relevant information that could have been easily linked to the incident."

A UNIFIL peacekeeper videotaped the removal of the contents, and attempted to tow one of the cars. According to a much-later U.N. report, there were fifty items taken from the car, seven of them blood-stained. (Report of the fact-finding investigation relating to the abduction of three Israeli soldiers on 7 October 2000 and subsequent relevant events, Aug. 2, 2001.)

The end of the UNIFIL videotape featured armed Lebanese men confronting the UN forces, and taking the cars away from the UN. The UN personnel did not resist, because, they later claimed, the cars did not belong to the UN anyway.

The UNTSO officer told The Daily Star that the UN ordered its personnel to destroy all photographs and written reports about the incident.

The U.N. did not provide the Israelis with the automobile contents, or the videotape, both of which might have helped the Israelis rescue the kidnap victims. Instead, the seized contents of the cars were taken to a town in Lebanon, stored in a safe, and some were eventually returned to Hezbollah.

Israel found out about the videotape, and demanded that the UN let Israeli investigators see it. Kofi Annan and his Special Envoy denied that any videotape existed. It is not clear whether Annan was lying, or whether he was misled.

Nine months after the kidnapping, July 6, 2001, the UN admitted that is had the videotape. Annan ordered an internal UN Report, which was led by UN undersecretary-General Joseph Connor. (Connor was later implicated in the Oil-for-Food scam.) The report revealed that the UN had two additional videotapes-one of which contained still photographs from the kidnapping itself. The UN investigation declared that there was no evidence that the UNIFIL forces had been bribed, or that the UN had deliberately misled anyone.

Even after admitting the existence of the first videotape, Annan refused to allow Israel to view it. He claimed that letting Israel see evidence about the kidnapping would undermine the UN’s neutrality. Thus, Annan insisted on neutrality between innocent victims and terrorists who had used fake UN insignia and who had taken vehicles from UN staff a gunpoint.

The United States House of Representatives, on July 30, 2001, passed by a vote of 411-4 a resolution urging the UN to allow Israel to see the videotape. Annan relented, but only under the condition that the tape be edited so as to hide the faces of the Hezbollah perpetrators. He also agreed to give the Israelis some, but not all, of the items which the UN had seized from the getaway cars.

On January 29, 2004, the bodies of the murdered Israelis were returned to Israel by Hezbollah, as part of a prisoner exchange.

UPDATE: In response to one of the commenters, I've added the following analysis on two questions: 1. By what standard can the UN be considered an "accomplice" in the Hezbollah kidnapping? 2. Is anti-semitism the best explanation of UN behavior?

1. Regarding UN complicity in kidnapping, one can analogize from the rules that are used to decide whether a corporation is criminally culpable for the acts of its employees, or whether a government agency is liable under section 1983 for the acts of its employees. At the lowest level--the four bribed Indians--the trier of facts looks at the entity's efforts to prevent or punish the employee conduct in question, and whether the entity creates a culture in which the conduct is encouraged or tacitly tolerated.

For misconduct by higher-ranking employees, prosecutors and fact-finders tend to be more likely to conclude that misconduct is attributable to the entity. If you believe the UNTSO official who spoke to The Daily Star (not exactly a reflexively pro-Israel newspaper), or if you believe that reports of a vast bribery scheme are true, then you might well find culpability on the part of the UN.

But I think that my calling the UN an "accomplice" is supportable purely on the undisputed public facts about the UN's concealment and suppression of evidence - with some of the suppression being conducted at the direct order of the UN's chief executive. I believe the undisputed facts are sufficient to show, at the least, that the UN was an accessory-after-the-fact to the kidnappings.

Moreover, the activities of the UN's top staff in New York City, and of high-ranking UN officials in Lebanon, are also relevant evidence for whether there is UN corporate culture of tolerance for terrorism/kidnapping, which is relevant evidence for whether the misconduct of the Indian brigade can be attributed to the UN.

As some commenters have pointed out, there is a very long record of the UN being extremely lax towards crimes committed by its peacekeepers in many other places--for example, the rapes of women and girls in former Yugoslavia, Cambodia, West Africa, and the Congo. The global record suggests, again, a corporate culture of indifference (despite official statements to the contrary) towards employee on-the-job involvement in violent crime; the evidence of a global culture of indifference is more evidence which a fact-finder could use in concluding that crimes of the Indian brigade were attributable to the UN.

2. Anti-semitism. I don't think that anti-semitism is the root of the UN's problem with Israel. It's true, as some commentators have pointed out, that the UN is functionally anti-semitic; that is, the UN constantly condemns Israel far more often and more vehemently than it condemns other countries which (even if you believe the worst about Israel) violate human rights much more severely than Israel does. The Eye on the UN website provides copious documentation of the UN's functional anti-semitism.

Nevertheless, I think the UN's pervasive anti-Israelism, although anti-Semitic in practice, is not primarily motivated by hatred of Jews.

Hitler was genuinely committed to anti-Semitism. He harmed his own military interests by giving rail line priority to trains which were headed for the death camps, putting those trains ahead of military transport trains. Similarly, Hitler would have produced resources with which to fight the war if he had used Jews as slave labor (as many were used before extermination), rather than killing them en masse. Who else would harm their own self-interest in order to kill Jews. The answers include "the government of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the PLO." But only one of these has a UN delegation, and the UN had turned vehemently against Israel long before Iran's government was taken over by Islamonazis.

Way back in the 1950s, the Arab bloc at the UN had succeeded in perverting UNRWA so that UNRWA would perpetuate rather than solve the Palestinian refugee problem. The Arab dictators of the day may have personally despised Jews, but I think that the dictators were acting out of self-interest, not prejudice. They recognized that keeping the Arab-Israeli conflict festering was a good way to distract and divert the anger of their own nations' populations. In retrospect, we know that the strategy was only partially successful, since the fomentation of anti-Israel Jew hatred sometimes aroused local forces which the dictatorships were unable to control.

Arab government-incited anti-semitism had the advantage of building on historical prejudices against Jews. (It's true that, in the past, Arab Moslem regimes sometimes treated Jews better than did European Christians, but there was also a long record of atrocious abuse of Jews in the Arab world on which the post-WWII Arab dictatorships could build.)

But suppose that modern Israel had never been created, and that, after WWII, some other state for a stateless people had been born. Maybe sympathy for the Gypsies, who were also the victims of Nazi genocide, might have led to the creation of Gypsistan (or Romastan, according to the modern usage) in a part of Egypt. (The word "gypsy" comes from the "Egypt", based on the belief that the group originated there.) Or some other persecuted group might have established a homeland in the wastelands of Libya. In any case, I think that the establishment of a non-Arab state would likely have led to military confrontation, and if the attempt to exterminate that state by force had failed, then the Arab dictators would have found political advantage in fomenting hatred of that non-Arab state.

Although UNRWA was captured very shortly after it was born, the broader UN assault on Israel didn't get going until the 1960s; the assault peaked in the 1970s, and later receded slightly from its 1970s apex. The anti-Israel assault of the 1970s was merely one element in a successful Soviet strategy of aligning the new UN members, most of them former colonies of Europe, and most of them dictatorships, into an anti-Western bloc. Israel, having the misfortune of being located in the middle of a sea of dictatorships, was a natural target of this UN super-majority; but the same would have been true if Romastan were a pro-western democracy.

Today, the Islamic bloc at the UN continues to find local political advantage in anti-Israelism (as it would with anti-Romastanism), while the rest of the Third World finds it advantageous to go along. I don't think that the dictatorship of China, for example, cares one way or the other about Jews or Israel; but the Chinese dictatorship correctly discerns that voting with the Islamic bloc against Israel is a cost-free way to curry favor with Islamic states, and win their support on issues relevant to China.

Regarding Kofi Annan, and most of the rest of the UN's leading executives, I would say that, functionally, they are vicious anti-Semites, but that, in their hearts, they are not particularly prejudiced against Jews per se. Rather, their actions are explainable under the principles of organizational behavior. Annan is a career UN employee (the first one to become Secretary-General), and he has risen through the organization by shrewdly placating whoever needs to be placated. His anti-Israel actions are simply the result of his astute calculation of the balance of forces at the UN. If he could gain more power at the United Nations by denouncing Fiji or by defending Israel, he would do so.

So there is no anti-semitic conspiracy at the UN, in the sense of a conspiracy directed by people who are deeply motivated by hatred of Jews. Rather, the UN's criminal complicity in the kidnapping of Israelis, like the rest of the UN's anti-Israelism, is explainable as the logical result of a wide variety of UN actors behaving according to their self-interest. Friday, July 21, 2006

Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 28, 2006 4:32 PM

Thank you Waterdragon and Ben Hur. When the world learned what had happened in the death camps of Nazi Germany, they were outraged and appalled...but not enough to completely drop their restrictions at country clubs, posh hotels, and swank restaurants. The world said "Never Again" with an air of sophistication; ready to revel in peace. The Jews said "D%mn right!" with the resolve to win or die.

Posted by: Hutch at July 28, 2006 5:20 PM

There is another case to be made against proportionality in warfare.

Proportional response has the unfortunate effect of dragging on a war indefinitely. When two sides are roughly equivalent in power, the war can carry on indefinitely, leading to mass slaughter. A case in point is WWI, and a more recent example is the Iraq-Iran war.

Far better for all, soldiers and civilians alike, that the war is won as quickly as possible, and that means use of disproprtionate force. Then the protagonists, victor and defeated, can set about rebuilding their lives asap. It is the beginning of real peace.

In the same vein, a war that is stopped prematurely, leaves both sides dissatisfied, resulting in an armed and prickly ceasefire, and both eager to lock horns again, leading to a far greater conflagration then before.

For far too long, Israel has been forced to consent to a premature cessation of hostilites. This has led the Palistinians or the Hezbollah to feel that they were undefeated. I have a feeling that Pres Bush and his advisors realise this, and are prepared to give Israel a free hand. And that is what is meant when Bush and Blair talk of a real and meaningful peace in the ME.

This is ofcourse true when one is dealing with a rational enemy as Germany or Japan were. Not so now, as all of us are dealing with the Jihad, which has its own dynamics and reward system, which are not negotiable in the real world. Despite this, Israel should finish the job ie if the US will allow it.

Posted by: DP111 at July 28, 2006 6:17 PM

Dear world, why did the Arabs - the "Palestinians" - massacre 67 Jews in one day in 1929? Could it have been their anger over Israeli aggression in 1967? And why were 510 Jewish men, women and children slaughtered in Arab riots between 1936-39? Was it because Arabs were upset over 1967?

33:21 * 33:21 * 33:21 * 33:21 * 33:21 * 33:21 * 33:21 * 33:21 * 33:21 * 33:21 * 33:21

No, Ben-Hur. All these Jew murders were committed by Moslems obeying God’s commandments in 2:64, 4:55, and most of all 33:21. These murdering Moslems were observing the Sunnah. So, a better question to ask would be why did Mohammed murder 800 Jewish fathers and teenage boys at Banu Qurayza?

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at July 28, 2006 7:00 PM

eloivsdiablo asks...

"Has anyone ever met a Muslim who didn't hate Jews?"

Yes, in ISRAEL. People who've lived there can back me up.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at July 28, 2006 7:45 PM

"Has anyone ever met a Muslim who didn't hate Jews?"

"Yes, in ISRAEL. People who've lived there can back me up."

poetcomic1, that is the most fascinating thing I've heard since I began visiting this site! Thanks for the info. Very interesting.

Posted by: Stand fast in the liberty at July 28, 2006 10:31 PM

Stand Fast...

As a matter of fact terrorists a few years ago bombed a mixed cafe popular with both working class Arabs and Jews - it was chosen intentionally.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at July 28, 2006 11:45 PM

Jan Egelund is Norwegian. He worked in the Norwegian Foreign Ministry.

Norway has a capital city called Oslo.
In Oslo Israeli negotiators met with PLO negotiators to produce The Oslo Accords.

Israel traded land for peace.

Israel let the PLO come to the West Bank and Gaza.

Israel withdrew from Lebanon unilaterally.

Israel withdrew from Gaza unilaterally.

Israel withdrew earlier from Sinai - here the terrorists bomb Sharm al-Sheik ....................everywhere else the terrorists fire rockets or abduct border guards, or run criminal gangs, or simply fester in their own lassitude.

Israel has proven the point - withdrawing from territory does not bring security - it brings increased danger. It is impossible for the Palestinians to build a functioning state - they have failed in the same 60 years that Korea became a major industrial country, they have failed to do so in the period when China moved from Mao to being a major industrial power.

They live on welfare from the EU and USA and Japan and demand more for the ever more children they produce without work or skills.

This is really getting to be like H G Wells Time Machines with the Eloi and the Morlocks

Posted by: Voyager at July 29, 2006 9:55 AM

is this the same schuck that ragged on middle America? there ya go.

Posted by: massachusettsrepublican at July 29, 2006 11:08 AM

Mr Egeland should read in the Koran verses like this:
"Those that make war against Allah and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter." (Sura 5.33-34)

"Allah revealed His will to the angels, saying: 'I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!' That was because they defied Allah and His apostle. He that defies Allah and his apostle shall be sternly punished by Allah." (Sura 8.12-13)

"In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones [i.e. non-Muslims] one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost." (Sura 8.37)

"Muster against them [i.e. non-Muslims] all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them who are unknown to you but known to Allah." (Sura 8.60)

"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal harshly with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate." (Sura 9.73)

"When We resolve to raze a city, We first give warning to those of its people who live in comfort. If they persist in sin, judgement is irrevocably passed, and We destroy it utterly." (Sura 17.16-17)

"We have destroyed many a sinful nation and replaced them by other men. And when they felt Our Might they took to their heels and fled. They were told: 'Do not run away. Return to your comforts and to your dwellings. You shall be questioned all.' 'Woe betide us, we have done wrong' was their reply. And this they kept repeating until We mowed them down and put out their light." (Sura 21.11-15)

"When you meet the unbelievers in jihad, chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended." (Sura 47.4)

"Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Sura 48.29)

and after that he could tell us what religion has 'created a generation(s) of hatred'

Posted by: Bernardo at July 29, 2006 2:17 PM

Steven L. There are no liberals on the Supreme Court, check out which presidents appointed the current judges. Me thinks that the sentient judges look to the constitution and long term affects of rulings, not just the emotionally satisfying wishes that reactionaries wish.

Reactionaries are like African natives, they live in the present, and they can't see into or think about unintended adverse consequences.

In other words you whine and beach because you lost the battle, but by losing the battle, you have forestalled losing the war and worse becoming your own worst enemy.

If you could empower the gubmint to do what you want it to do today, think you not of long term consequences, precedents and how the Frankenstein monster you have created will turn around and destroy you.

Our founding fathers thought of that fearsome development, and that is why they divided powers and provided us a constitution.

So you would trash all of that, to give us a dictatorship, just so long as it is (for today) Your dictatorship..?

How Islamic of you?

Posted by: Nariz at July 29, 2006 8:51 PM