Seems like the 1930s all over again. . .
At least my family is all over here this time around.

As for the Syrian TV thing; they've been doing this BS for years. The PLO even has it's own "Archeology scholars" arguing this myth.

Remember when Arafat has claimed that the western wall wasn't a part of the temple? Or the fact that there was never a temple?

No one should really be suprised.

It's important to note, that the first archeological excavations under Ottoman rule were carried out by Christians (not jews, not muslims).

As if there is such a thing as scholarship or archeology in the Islamic world.

The inevitable conclusion is that significant numbers, though by no means all, of the young generation of Arab artists, a stratum that usually represents liberal trends and openness, have volunteered their services to sharpen and stylize the message that up until now has been promoted by fundamentalist movements such as Hamas. The essence of the message is that there is no possibility of making peace with the Jews -- not because of any political argument or clash over territory, but because that nation is a priori unfit to be counted among the human race. The Jewish religion is one big, ongoing lie, and Jewish history is the fruit of a consistent distortion of the past. Furthermore, the Jewish people present a future threat to the rest of the world.

This piece hits the nail on the head. Jews worldwide are, or will be fighting for their lives and will not receive help from anywhere in Europe. It is our responsibility (as human beings) to make sure that the US and Israel remain a safe havens for jews worldwide.

Islam and Leftism® are enemies to civilizations everywhere in the world.

The global facination with judenhass continues.

Can't we just send them some real American tv shows, like "The Dukes of Hazard"? Who has time to hate when Daisy Duke is prancing across the screen in high-ride cutoffs and low-ride halter tops.

Who has time to hate when Daisy Duke is prancing across the screen in high-ride cutoffs and low-ride halter tops

Even Mohammed would have married her (if she were nine).

Waiting for the Nigerian fatwa...

Syrian TV is running the dramatic locally produced series, "The Collapse of Legends." Its central premise is that there is no archeological evidence to support the stories of the Old Testament; that the Torah we hold holy is nothing but one big forgery made up by rabbis; that it has no connection with the Ten Commandments, but is rather a fabrication of history designed to give the Jews a claim to the Land of Israel.

It's funny how this tack implictly acknowledges that "the archaeological and historical record does show that what the Jews claim about Israel is true. Wouldn't bother 'em otherwise.

So the Zionist Conpiracy has been able to fool scientists in Europe, US, and Israel for the last ~150 years?

Well, that's an achievement in itself, isn't it?

On the one hand, the koran validates jewish history as relayed in the old testament, and even states that the land of israel is eternally the jew's own.

Can't they get their story straight? They are pathetic incompetents in everything they do, except killing jews.

On the one hand, the koran validates jewish history as relayed in the old testament, and even states that the land of israel is eternally the jew's own.

Can't they get their story straight? They are pathetic incompetents in everything they do, except killing jews.

Hate to be callous about this, but isn't it time to at least consider our one-sided support of Israel? The Arab people will almost certainly ALWAYS hate Israel. For our own sake, to minimize terrorism against us, why not - while we also STRONGLY emphasize that in return we expect help on Al Queda - insist on a Palestinian state?

Let Israel build a Berlin Wall/Great Wall of China sort of wall to protect them. But like the USA and their border with Mexico, Israeli businesses want cheap Palistinian labor. Instead of physically isolating themselves from Palestine, business considerations cause them to be in a situation where occupation of parts of Palestine is the only answer.

If Palestinians sneak into Israel - OR if terrorists sneak into the USA from Mexico or Canada, it is because BUSINESS interests that control so-called "conservative" governments want open borders for cheap labor and higher corporate profits.

BOTTOM LINE: Arabs hate Israel. Why should the USA piss off 1 BILLION Muslims (many of whom are homicidal lunatics) just to appease 5 million Israelis who REFUSE to protect their own borders??????

Bill,

You suggest that "in return" we insist on a Palestinian state.

How would "a Palestinian state" be a benefit to the United States?

By the way, Bill, do you routinely stab your friends in the back when things get tough?

And Bill, have you ever heard of Danegeld? After the Western world has sold the Jews down the river, and the Arabs have learned that violent intimidation on an international scale works, who will be next?

Bill (#10) wrote:

The Arab people will almost certainly ALWAYS hate Israel.

And they'll always hate us, godless, promiscuous capitalists that we are. If they ever got their way in Israel, we'd recieve their undivided attention.
Do you actually think Osama and his ilk would say "Oh, hey, the Americans were cooperative and turned their backs on Israel. Now we don't have anything to complain about or blow people up over. Everything is rainbows and sunshine!"

RE #10 - Bill

I won't argue with you over your agenda, as I am an Israeli and naturally quite biased on the subject.

I would like to ask you this -

- Do you think that after the creation of a palestinian state the muslims of the world will by some miracle get a life?
- Do you think that the hundreds of millions who grew up in madrassas chanting "death to America" will suddenly leave you guys alone?
- What do you expect terrorists to do once they are unemployed?
start writing poetry in small attics?
get in touch with their feminine side?
start hugging trees?

If your answer to the previous questions is "Yes",
than I suggest that you get a job at the UN.

It is perfectly legitimate to have criticism of Israel, and to question the Israeli-American relationship.
However, I find it enfuriating when people are being delusional,
when was the last time you saw a bully leave a person alone once he got what he demanded?

Bill;

Yehudit is right. As long as the palis are blowing up weddings and shooting children in their beds, any strong support by the U.S. for a pali state will just prove to them that their tactics work. When they realize that, will they stop at acquiring their own state, or will they continue on with their oft-stated goal of liberating palestine "from the river to the sea"?

And what's this about Israel refusing to protect its borders? IDF soldiers are stationed in every settlement. Israel is building a wall between themselves and the palis - it's one of the things that's pissing them off. And what about all these checkpoints I keep hearing about (one of the main grievances of the palestinian supporters)? Is that just a ruse to give the Israelis a false sense of security?

Israel is doing everything it can to protect itself (short of razing every village in the territories and expelling the inhabitants.)

I agree with you about american borders, though - the American people overwhelmingly approve of stronger measures to stop border jumpers. But it's not just the "conservative" business interests who want open borders - there's a vocal component on the left who see any attempt to restrict immigration as racism.

Actually, there is one prime difference between now and the 1930s.

The Israeli nuclear arsenal.

Let the Muslims and Euros keep this up, we may see it used.

Bill, you ask: "Why should the USA piss off 1 BILLION Muslims (many of whom are homicidal lunatics) just to appease 5 million Israelis who REFUSE to protect their own borders??????"

First, if the Israelis did not protect their borders there would'nt be any more Israelis. The fact that you think that "business interests" are damaging Israel's security shows that you understand nothing about Israel. Israel is not the US. The US-Mexico situation is absolutely incomparable to the Israel-Arab situation. Israel has managed to free itself from dependence on palestinian cheap labor by importing "guest workers," mainly from South-East Asia and Romania.

Second, you ask why the US stands behind Israel if it is not politically expedient to do so. The US supports Israel because Israel stands for democratic ideals, the rule of law, and peace. Do you want your country supporting freedom or oppression?

For those who think a PLO State will solve problems

Also, for those who want good arguments on the subject --

Try this item: "Twelve Bad Arguments for a State of Palestine:

[Link: www.israel.net...]

#11 James:

Many (although true not all) Muslims who hate America do hate us because we appear to not support a Palestinian state. To the extent that Isreal is the reason for hatred of the USA, a Palestinian state will lessen Muslim/Arab hatred of the USA, and there will be fewer recruits for Al Queda. I KNOW this will not solve the problem, but it should reduce the problem.

And....if Israel IS our friend, they will build the wall and solve the suicide bombing problem themselves. We could even have the UN pay to build it. But business interests in Israel prevent this. Israel's "checkpoints DO NOT WORK and HAVE NEVER WORKED. A new solution is needed. Build a HUGE WALL and seal the borders!

#12:

I agree 100% that we don't want Islamic terrorists to learn that violence works. However, is physically dividing and separating Isreal and Palestine with a giant wall a victory for terrorists? I don't think so.

Personally I agree with your original point so much that I favor strong military action in not only Iraq, but also putting pressure somehow on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations to make sure that all Muslim countries know that supporting Al Queda and other groups that threaten the USA (not neccesarily just Isreal) are severely and swiftly punished.

to #13 Sarah:

Yes, many Muslim radicals hate non-Muslim nations, not just Isreal. But the hated of Jews seems to be far greater than the hate of any other group. Certainly the main reason why the USA, and not Europe, was attacked on 9/11 was because we support Isreal much more than Europe does. In terms of "promiscuity" (in terms of acceptance of pornography, abortion, gay rights, adultery, prostitution, etc) Europe is WAY more promiscuous than the USA. Why was the USA, and not Europe not attacked on 9/11? Because we support Isreal.

#14 NOMAD:

As for your questions:
#1 and #3: As long as those assholes stay on their side of the wall, I don't give a damn what they do or if they have a life. Neither should you.
#2: If America can help to get the Israeli army out of the occupied territories, perhaps few of them will be chanting such things

As for rewarding bullies' demands, I believe that the PLO wants to occupy and destroy ("drive the Jews into the sea" or something like that). Permanently physically building a barrier between them and the state of Isreal would NOT meet their demands.

#15 MOOSE:

The checkpoints do not work. If they did, there wouldn't be any suicide bomings in the first place. As far as the "wall" they are building, I read that in most places it's just a shitty little fence, and that they are only in a few places, with many gaps between fences. So, Isreal is NOT doing all they can to protect themselves. Also, you're right about the left being complicit in open borders. I was just emphasizing the hypocricy of the so-called "pro-defense" "conservatives".

The bottom line is to protect AMERICA (at least for me, I am an American). What Isreal is doing now and has always done has NEVER stopped the cycle of violence. New answers must be found. The status quo in Israel is making the risk of terrorism against America greater.

But Isreal will NOT solve the problem because they will not build an impenetrable wall since they want cheap labor for their businesses. The problem exists because of GREED and the lust of MONEY and profits. They allow terrorism to continue. We should not suffer because of their GREED.

#17 Erik:

Obviously, they are SOMEWHAT protecting their borders, as they do still exist. I meant they are not doing all they can to protect their borders. If they were there would be no suicide bombers entering Israel from Palestine.

And if they do not need cheap Palestinian labor, why do they continue to allow Palestinians through the checkpoints each day to go work in Isreal?

I receive Al Manar, Hezbollah TV, on my satellite dish (aka Devil Dish, much hated by the Mullahs). After reading this piece I tuned in and was amused to hear the music they have chosen to introduce their "news". They use Jeff Lynn's War of the Worlds - a 70s classic. The part they use originally had the following lyrics:

The chances of anything coming from Mars, are a million to one they say. The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one - but still they come

Anyone want to have a go at adapting those lyrics to suit Hezbollah better?

Bill (#19)

Isreal

I should have guessed. ;-)

Bill,

Israel's kidglove treatment of the Pals comes per special request of the gov't of the USA. If you think Israel should whoop ass, they can and they would, but tell it to the president.

How dare you insist that Israel is to blame for anything, Bill. That they could as you say "seal the border" and solve the problem is not important. The right thing is to blame the Palestinians for everything and just hide our heads in the sand like ostriches when Israel occupies Palestine. Israel can do no wrong. Shame on you!

James #22

Yes, to SOME extent, many Muslims hate us because of Israel. Does anybody doubt this?

James #22

Trying to understand the point of #22, is that I misspelled the word "Israel" ? Well, I guess that finding a misspelled word in a 10-paragraph message basically invalidates the entire message.

Actually, if the only response that people who disagree with your opinions is "ha ha, you misspelled a word", you have won the war of ideas.

RE #19 - Bill

(1)
Have you noticed how mortars and rockets have a funny way of overcoming walls?
Have you noticed how small Israel is?
Have you noticed how Jordan doesn't really want a common border with ANY palestinian entity whatsoever?

(2)
"perhaps few of them will be chanting such things"

Oh dear... wishful thinking...
wake up and smell the coffee, you are an infidel therefore you deserve to die. They've been quite clear about that for decades, it is the west that does not wish to listen.

While we're discussing "root causes" of muslim hatred for the US, allow me to remind you that the grievances that they have are US involvment in the region, and that involvment has to do primarily with US interests and it's relations with the arab countries.

for instance -

The #1 demand of al-Qa'ida is that the US remove all it's troops from Saudi-Arabia.
What does guarding Kuwait [which does not appear to even try and defend itself] have to do with Israel exactly?

Furthermore,
the most important branch of al-Qa'ida, is that of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, headed by Ayman-al-Zawahri (currently Bin-Laden's #2).
He chose to attack America directly because he failed, numerous times, to assasinate Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and topple the military regime. He believes that the power of the Egyptian regime stems from the power of America in the region, therefore regime change in Egypt will only come after the fall of America.
I would'nt underestimate him, as the Egyptians are bigshots in the al-Qa'ida organizations. It is a commonly overlooked fact that, while there were many Saudies among the 9/11 hijackers, the commander, which counted the most, was an Egyptian (Mohammad Atta). The Saudies are way too dumb to pull such a thing off by themselves.

My point is - if America wishes to stick it's head back in the sand in the notorious ostrich position -
it has to give up ALL interests in the middle east. and afganistan. and asia. and africa. and...

No oil, no terrorism. How do you like that?

No, Bill. It's just that the "Isreal" spelling is commonplace among the David Duke set. It figures you'd spell it that way.

Do your friends know that you're a treacherous person?

Bill (#19) wrote:
Certainly the main reason why the USA, and not Europe, was attacked on 9/11 was because we support Isreal much more than Europe does.

Didn't Osama himself say that it was because of the US presence in Saudi Arabia?

In terms of "promiscuity" (in terms of acceptance of pornography, abortion, gay rights, adultery, prostitution, etc) Europe is WAY more promiscuous than the USA.

Sure, but because the US is larger and richer than any European countries, our promiscuity gets broadcast globally in larger quantities. There's more "Baywatch" abroad than "Loft Story." Because of this, the US is the posternation for Western Dissipation.

Why was the USA, and not Europe not attacked on 9/11? Because we support Isreal.

There are plenty of (wacky) reasons--besides Israel--for choosing the US. I've mentioned two alternate ones in this post. I agree that Israel is one of the reasons the Islamic terrorists hate us, but my point is that it's just one item on a pretty damn long list.

At any rate, Bill, a hypothetical question: if al Qaeda's sole motivation for the attack was our promiscuity, would you urge American women to wear burquas to avoid irritating the terrorists further?

RE #24 - Pam

Well *some* people don't pay others to fight for them.
*Some* people have a universal conscription of three years in the army [during which they do NOT get paid], not including reserves duty of about a month a year spanning the majority of their adult life.

If you think it is our hobby to stand in a palestinian street while we get stoned by children,
If you genuinely believe we like having our fathers and sons away from their families, that we enjoy war,

Then I suggest that you take your head out of your ass as soon as possible, because the lack of oxygen is clearly beginning to have it's effect on your brain.

So far they have built about a mile of wall. It's extremely time-consuming and expensive. Not a solution. And I doubt the UN would pay for it.

Great, now we got 3 obsessive trolls to scroll past:

Ranbutan: settlements blah blah blah settlements blah blah settlements Jews control the world blah blah settlements blah blah.....

Bill: BUSINESS INTERESTS blah blah business blah blah wall blah blah blah BUSINESS blah blah blah wall blah blah.....

Nastification Agenda: The only way to parody him would be to post a really long rant filled with loooonnnng quotes from the Koran and selected Muslim clerics. Not going to subject you folks to that when I'm sure the real thing will turn up before long.

The "Palestinians" have got it really good. They are on the safe side of political dead-lock.

Nomad 33

1. If a missle is launched over the wall, just drop a bomb where it was launched from. I even read that Israel has some anti-missle technology. Anyway, just trading suicide bombings for retaliatory occupations is not working.

2. You are right that there are other root causes. Al Queda does not emphasize Palestine, but all the polls I read say that among most Arabs, our support of Israel is the main reason for anti-Americanism. This may not influence leadership, but anti-Israel feelings surely motivate a lot of Al Queda recruits.

I don't ignore the fact that some Muslims would hate us because of our support of the Saudi and Egypt governments, and our troops in the middle east. Personally whatever we need to do - either just leave the region or fighting wars to bring democracy to the Middle East and destroy Al Queda - is fine by me. Maybe Isreal can even be helpful in doing this.

I have a problem with not protecting our borders in the USA, not checking more than 2% of incoming cargo for smuggled WMD, allowing Iran and Iraq to develop WMD, letting Osama Bin Laden and Zawahri to escape Tora Bora into Pakistan, and THEN getting Muslims MORE angry with us than they are now by supporting Israel. If we could stop WMD proliferation AND exterminate Al Queda AND get rid of Muslim governments that sponsor terror AND protect our borders, then let Israel do whatever they want in Palestine.

Yehudit, (#31) so far I don't think Bill's a troll. He's been quite coherent and civil, as much as I disagree with his conclusions.

RE #33 - Bill

I'm talking rockets, not missiles here.
a rocket is much smaller than a missile [and does'nt have a guidance system]. We have no current answer for rockets, only a very LONG term high power laser project [called "THEL"].
Same goes for mortars [no self propulsion too].

And by the way, history shows that retaliatory bombings of rocket launchs in Lebanon earned Israel just as much criticism. For instance - the Cafar-Kana "massacre" - we shot back, but the launchers were located next to a UN compound and we ended up killing 100 innocent Lebanese civillians.

In addition, Bombardment campains happened heavily in Chechnia. They practically wiped out the city of Grozni.
Did it help the russians? Nope.

If things were that simple,
don't you think we'd try them already?
Give us the credit of minimal intelligence please!

I could go on and on and talk about my experience with arabs and their agenda [being of arab decendency myself] but this really would'nt get us anywhere, now would it? Our views are far too different to be bridged.

Lets just stop spamming this thread now. Peace.
[Note to Self - Easy on the Caffein.]

#29 Sarah

AND

#27 NOMAD 33:

I agree with you both 100%. Israel is only one root cause. Many other issues need to be dealt with also. Your points are well made.

#28 James:

Class, here is a lesson from a logic class I took in college:of an ad homenim attack from James:

No, Bill. It's just that the "Isreal" spelling is commonplace among the David Duke set. It figures you'd spell it that way.

Ad hominem means an argument "to the man", i.e., insulting a person when you have no valid points on which to disprove that person's argument. FYI, my family accidentaly got a Jewish last name due to my ancestors shortening their Sweedish surname to sound more "American". So I hate anti-Semitism as much as anyone.

(Oh gee, hope I spelled "ad hominem" correctly above. I guess misspelling that would make me a communist or neo-nazi or a radical vegetarian or something. Maybe James would know. He seems to be an expert on such things.)

Well we seem to have gone from an irreverent aside (note the 'winkie') to "James made an ad hominem".

No, I explained to you why I made the comment I did. It is indeed the case that nazis of all varieties seem to have the "Isreal" bug in common, whether the mispelling is intentional or not. I did not with my wink intend to imply you're a nazi, although upon reflecting your position that America should throw Israel to the dogs (presumably hoping they'll devour us later) I think your position is not qualitatively that removed from the rest of the "Isreal" set.

You hate anti-Semitism as much anyone because you have a Jewish-sounding last name? That's... interesting.

#34 Sarah Thank You

#31 Yehudit:

First of all, What is a troll? #31 is just another ad homenim attack (see #36), just name calling when you disagree with someone. If you think the wall idea is impractical, that is a valid opinion, but what else has proven to protect Israel from the Palestinians?

And I may appear to be "obsessive", but I am posting so much because every time I post something there are always replies, which I then answer. Thanks all for your opinions. Just trying to find answers like the rest of you. Goodnight.

OK, got to answer another one:

James:

If anyone can find a way to destroy Al Queda, protect the USA borders from WMD smuggling, and destroy all goverments that support terror, and stop WMD proliferation, then let Israel do ANYTHING it wants to. Until then, I think that whatever can be done to defuse the Palestinian situation WHILE MAINTAINING ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO EXIST should be considered, as it may ease TO SOME EXTENT anti-American Arab sentiments.

Yes, my name is "Bloom", short for the Sweedish "Bloomquist". Not a joke.

James,
I also misspell "Israel" from time to time. I don't think it is likely this marks me as a David Duke type, as I'm a Jew who lives in Israel. Also, Bill's posting does not show him as such a person, too. I'm sure you can do better than attack the spelling of a person. Go after his logic, feasibility of ideas, knowledge of world matters, anything. Misspelling happens - same as s**t. That's all there is to it :-)

#39 Bill
I gues I'm quoting you:

If anyone can find a way to destroy Al Queda, protect the USA borders from WMD smuggling, and destroy all goverments that support terror, and stop WMD proliferation, then let Israel do ANYTHING it wants to. Until then, I think that whatever can be done to defuse the Palestinian situation WHILE MAINTAINING ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO EXIST should be considered, as it may ease TO SOME EXTENT anti-American Arab sentiments.

If anybody can, that person would be considered god I imagine. Oh wait, that was a bit on coming attractions. God help me if I'm still around when that happens. Ooops sorry, a bit of my Bible thumping got out.

Bill, you seem to be a bit of an idealist. As I see it, the Palis consider themselves to be in a state of total war with Israel. Nothing less than the absolute destruction of Israel will be sufficient for them.

One almost gets the picture that in the same way the adult Paleos put their children out front to throw rocks, the rest of he Islamis movement puts the would-be Palistinian nation out front to do the dirty work. Guess the rest of them got sick of Israel kicking their butts so they got a proxy to lead a kind of bushwar.

Bill (#38)
Everyone seems to have a different interpretation of the term 'troll', but to me it's a poster who never makes a decent argument and never answers replies to their posts. They post things like "Bush is stupid" or "'The IDF kills innocent Palestinian children!!!" a lot. ('Uncle Phred' is the most recent example, I think.) They are completely unwilling to engage in the most cursory debate--it's almost as if they're posting blind.

Amos, (#40) heck yeah. In fact, in one of my posts in this thread, I almost did an "Isreal." Luckily I spellchecked it first. It's one of those weird words like "atheist" that go against English spelling conventions.
(btw, are you the same Amos that reads Donaldson?)

41 NTropy:

Yes, God - or a massive long term effort by the US and allied military forces?

The meaning of these conditions is to point out that the USA is still vulnerable to attack and because of that defusing the Palestinian question may calm some Muslims down (to some extent)may limit Al Queda recruitment.

I consider myself anything but an idealist. If a wall around Israel brings peace, do it. If Israel sending all the Palestinians to Jordan to create their state there brings peace, do that. If bringing all US troops out of the Middle East reduces the odds of a terrorist WMD attack in the USA, do that. If massively attacking and overthrowing all the Arab dictatorships reduces the odds of a terrorist WMD attack, do that.

It just seems that the status quo (Isreal & PLO constantly crossing borders to retaliate) and the USA condoning/supporting corrupt Arab dictatorships) is not the answer long term to reducing anti-American feelings among potential Al Queda recruits.

#43 Bill

I'm a self-professed Evangelical, Charismatic, Bible-thumping, fundamentalist Christian. So I take the following words very seriously:

Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah [and] against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. Zechariah 12:2-3

The very last thing I want to see is an American armed force in Israel, particularly Jerusalem. The most prominent terror organization for the U.S. is Al Queda and if they become active in the Pali / Israeli conflict it makes me worry that that would draw us in to chase them.

I consider myself anything but an idealist. If a wall around Israel brings peace, do it.

I don't think you're quite a realist either though. Let's face it, the way things are right now, human life is much cheaper than any wall.

If bringing all US troops out of the Middle East reduces the odds of a terrorist WMD attack in the USA, do that. If massively attacking and overthrowing all the Arab dictatorships reduces the odds of a terrorist WMD attack, do that.

Each of these "remedies" has so much nuance neither one of us can possibly imagine. Neither one of them is workable.

It just seems that the status quo (Isreal & PLO constantly crossing borders to retaliate) and the USA condoning/supporting corrupt Arab dictatorships) is not the answer long term to reducing anti-American feelings among potential Al Queda recruits.

They flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Can they really hate us any more than they already do? It seems self-perpetuating now.

Bill....you say....

Many (although true not all) Muslims who hate America do hate us because we appear to not support a Palestinian state. To the extent that Isreal is the reason for hatred of the USA, a Palestinian state will lessen Muslim/Arab hatred of the USA, and there will be fewer recruits for Al Queda. I KNOW this will not solve the problem, but it should reduce the problem.

why does there seem to be such a huge disconnect between this hypnotic rhetoric and reality.....

the arabs have been offered a second palestinian state since 1948...and the arabs have always refused it

i dont understand how the world rationalizes this contradiction....and how this total lie has become the a priori position of arabs and their facilitators.....

the arabs havent be denied a second palestinian arab state....the arabs have always refused to accept one

Bill, My take on the whole problem of Israel and Palestine is that the Pals don't just want their own country. This is an issue of the Nation of Islam. All the Islamic states are considered by Islam to be part of a whole. And that whole must be defended at all cost. If any part of Islam is occupied by non-believers, the Koran dictates that Jihad is in order. There is a lot of evidence to back this up as being a real issue. I would not matter if the Jews had never gone back and set up Israel. If any infidel entity occupies what was once muslim lands, they have to be driven out. Allah orders it. Why else do Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakestan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. all seem to be at least marginally involved? Why do Saudis have an issue with a US military base on their land? Why did Saddam as Kuwait to expell the US occupiers from their lands? If you give the Pals their own state, it just gives them more legal status with the UN (aka EU and other anti-semites). As soon as they get their own state, they will begin to arm for the final drive of the Jews to the sea. The fact that Israel is Jewish is a factor too, but any foreign entity occupying "Islamic land" will always be on the defense in the region. Jewish "invaders" just compounds the issue. If you look at what Arafat and other Pals say amongst themselves, they don't want just the occupied land back, they want the whole enchilada. If Israel gives the Pals their own state, Israel gets less than nothing on the deal.

By the way, I wonder if those Muslim enclaves in Britain, and the rest of EU, Canada are considered muslim land now. Makes you think.

Back to the original posting;
have they not read their own Qur'an's? By questioning the veracity of the "Jewish Book" they are denying the Qur'an. Seems more like sanctified prejudice.

Todays Washington Post had a long, informative article on the Settlements. Not very encouraging. The pace of the construction of illegal Settlements has accelerated since America was hit on 9/11. When Oslo started in 1993 there were 100,000 Settlers on the occupied territories. Now there are 200,000. All calls by the Americans to freeze new Settlements or roll back existing ones has been in the sum, ignored.

Settlements Continue

Bill - Your proposal to build a big Wall has been of course brought up before and recieved a similar reception on LGF. For some LGF posters the whole issue of Settlements is almost verboten....they absolutely hate it being brought up - because it alters the mental meme of subhuman Pals attacking Israelis for absolutely no reason other than Judenhass or infidelhass.

They honestly believe time is on the side of the Settlements....that at some point there will be enough of them that it is politically impossible for Israel to ever give them up in a Peace Settlement. And, there ARE people that assuredly DO want the US to take on a billion Muslims to keep the Settlements viable. Hence the talk of 1st the US taking Afghanistan, next Iraq, then Iran, then we can move on to wars against Pakistan and Saudi Arabia...then it is time to probably fix Indonesia and Egypt.....so with the passage of 15-20 years....threats removed....Israel will finally be secure and have all the lands it thinks it needs.

This assumes that the US will bear any burden, pay any price....to protect the Settlers and allow the current Israeli-Pal insanity to fester unchanged. The usual argument is that any concessions "reward" terrorism...but if the Brits had taken that attitude with the Mau-Mau, the IRA in 1916, or the Stern&Irgun groups - they would have refused to leave - and would have been left over the last 50 years with thousands of British soldiers and civilians dying every year in Kenya, Palestine, and Ireland...plus a huge drain on the British treasury. The same logic says therefore we must continue to station troops in Saudi Arabia that evidently we can't be permitted to use for anything, and support massive royal family corruption simply because terrorists say it is a grievance they want corrected....and we surely must never bo anything to fix something Al Qaeda says is a cause of their anger. The notion that the US will forever be obligated to pay billions every year to Israel, sacrifice it's men in interminable wars with the Muslims over the next two decades is a curious one....it's primarily a moral argument....since Israel is now a huge diplomatic, economic, and military liability to the US. Another key argument is that the West Bank is essential for Israel's strategic survival....since a day before the 6-Day War started, Israel was helplessly weak in the pre-1967 borders....

The assumption is that this moral imperative the US has to Israel is deep and unshakable. But support has grown less deep outside Jews and certain fundamentalist Christian sects that see Israel as necessary to have the conditions in place for the Coming Apoclypse. There has been a growing trend in everyday folks the USA to see both sides as being at fault over the last ten years....though diminished somewhat post 9/11, since moral equivalence is hard when Americans see loathsome homicide bombers quite similar to the hijackers of 9/11. And, evidence is that the support of the Settlements is not there in America.

A private poll of Israeli activists working on US political efforts to butress Israel support commisioned a private poll to assess the mood of influential Americans towards Israel. It was shocking in the dimunition of support for Israel...which they assumed post-9/11 and with a popular pro-Israel President would be better than ever. It's not.

Israel's Struggle for Hearts and Minds

One notable result was that 75% of American respondents described the Israeli intransigence, defiance of American wishes on the Settlements as the main obstacle to peace.

Yeah, the Muslims claim that Abraham, Isaac, Moses, etc were not Jews, but of some ethnic entity they refer to as "hanif." In order to support this fiction, they deny independent ancient Greek and Egyptian accounts of the people who "crossed the river" (Hebrews), and of the source of the Jewish religion in Abraham's claims of prophethood, and the covenant with Isaac. I suppose they operate under a version of the loathsome, Karen Armstrong's "hijack" dogma, to sanitize Islam.

Although the psycho-history craze burned out in the eighties, much could be made of Mohammed's obsessive paternal/fraternal identification with Abraham and Ishmael, and maternal respect for Sarah. For dubious reasons, Muslims evade discussion of Mohammed's first approaches to the Jewish tribes, of Yethrib. His envoys presented their "prophet" (nabi) as the last of the line from Abraham, effectively offering conversion to Judaism. The envoys proffered Islamic (submission) ritual as an original aspect of Judaism and not as an innovation, in fact sharia prescribes extermination for innovation (bidah). The Yethrib tribes rejected Mohammed's prophet' claims, because both his ritual practice - clear derivatives of the Babylonian "Marduk" prostration cult and, in regards to the Kaba, derivatives of both Coptic cube-architecture, and Hindu idol and circumnambulation rites - and his integration of Christian doctrines, were inconsistent with the founding principles of Judaism. Mohammed turned against the Jews, first by abandoning the original prostration-direction (Jerusalem-qibla) and incorporating anti-semitism as Islamic-exemplary (sunna), taking over Jewish governance of Yethrib - which Mohammed named, Medina - conducting selective GENOCIDE against innocent tribes, and prohibiting Jews from the Peninsula (jazeera).

I would argue that there is sufficient historical evidence to support claims that Jewish practices were maintained by the same people who "crossed the river," entered Egypt, made an exodus into the Dead Sea region (Palestine) and established a religious-monarchy, centered in Jerusalem, with Temple Mount as sacred ground. However, in the current state of academia, fiction is as good as fact, if not better. Our academics rely on neither reason or revelation; they seem to be operating on emotion, or a type of communal-hate, rooted in nihilism for its own sake. Academia-central will not begin criticizing Islam as an identifiable GENOCIDE cult, until they themselves are threatened by the sort of book-burning, clerical tyranny, and arbitrary injustice which is more than integral to Islam; it is sacred to the Muslim savages.

#25 Bill

first of all Muslims hate us because we are kufr...deniers of truth....and are condemed to live in dar ul harb, the world of war and chaos...

this is the a priori position of Islam..read the Koran.

additionally, their mandate is muslim...submission; and to bring the world to submit to sharia, the laws of allah.

The muslims consider freeing the kufir from ignorance and and wickedness, and showing us the 'truth of submission', as 'freedom', an not as 'compulsion'.

Muslims believe once we have heard the message of Islam, only our wickedness causes us to deny its truth....and so we, the unbeliever, are NEVER innocent...because we have deliberately rejected Islam and his prophets.

Regarding Israel....

The muslim have 3000 years of Jewish history to erase, and claim as muslim....Muslims have only 600 yrs of Christian history to negate, and many fewer prophets etc...and, since Christians are a larger, stronger group, with a well known historical antipathy towards Judiasm,

Christians have been a useful ally...."first the Saturday people, and then the Sunday people"......and blaming the Jews always seems to work.

The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, made vast territories available for self government.

Cultural groups such as the Persians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Arabs and Jews.....who have had uninterrupted presence in the fromer Ottoman Empire were given self determination.

The only religious group other than Muslims who were given self determination, were the Jews.

The Lebanon was created as a (so called) Christian/Muslim state, but thats another story.

Muslims have control of over 99% of the former Ottoman Lands......Jews have less than 1%, and that, you say, is the root cause of the problem.?

I dont think so.

Also, excerpts from the 12/8 opinion column by Tom Friedman, the NYT's ME expert.....on certain things he believes Bush MUST do soon.

What would the president tell the American people if he were preparing them for this multidimensional war? (Referring to the Iraq war)

He would tell the American people that this war could cost over a [Bold text highlighted by Ran]trillion dollars, and no one should think that we're going to be able to use Iraqi oil to pay for it. It will be paid for by our Treasury — and that means not just changing the faces of the Bush economic team but also re-examining the surplus-squandering tax cuts at the center of the Bush fiscal policy.

He would tell the Palestinians that the U.S. intends to cut off all assistance and diplomatic contacts until they get rid of their corrupt tyrant, Yasir Arafat, because no peace is possible with him. [Bold text highlighted -by Ran] He would tell Ariel Sharon that unless he halts all settlement building — now — the U.S. will start cutting off Israel's economic aid. And he would tell both that he intends to put the Clinton peace plan back on the table as his plan.

He would also tell all Arabs that America has one purpose in Iraq, once it is disarmed of dangerous weapons: to help Iraqis implement the U.N. Arab Human Development Report, which states that the failing Arab world can only catch up if it embraces freedom, modern education and women's empowerment.

Bill: throughout your many posts is this common theme -- "Muslims hate us because (insert some part of reality they don't like)." All I have to say is: who cares if "Muslims hate us"? Considering how many of them have been acting, I don't think I want to be friends. (This of course does not count the many Muslims throughout the world that do not, in fact, hate Americans.)

All the talk of giving up the settlements conveniently ignores a political and legal reality. Judea, Samaria and Gaza, as well as the Sinai and the Golan Heights, were captured by Israel in a defensive war. Let me clarify what that means so there will be no question: Israel, for the second time in her brief and UN-sanctioned history, was attacked by no fewer than five surrounding Arab countries. When the dust settled, Israel, who was in a defensive posture, had taken land from the aggressors, whose stated purpose was to "drive the Jews into the sea," obliterating the tiny state. Israel was entirely entitled to annex the land permanently.

The land was not taken from the sovereign Palestinian Arab state because there was none. Why? Because such a state had been rejected out of hand from the get go by the Arab League in favor of a captive terrorist breeding program, using the camps as breeding pens.

Instead, the Sinai and Gaza were taken from Egypt (the instigator of the 1967 mess) and the West Bank was taken from Jordan, which had illegally annexed the land at the second partitionment of Palestine in 1947. Bear in mind that Palestine, which the British mandate stated was to establish a homeland for the Jews, was first partitioned in 1922, giving 78% of the land not to Jews but to a branch of the Saudi royal family, forming the de novo Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The British mandate never called for a Palestinian Arab homeland because there was no need for one. At the time of the first partitionment made for Arabs, in violation of the British mandate, the east side of the Jordan was made Judenrein, in violation of the spirit of the mandate.

The second partition was a compromise some 26 years later to gain support in the UN for a completion of the British mandate. Even with that compromise, giving more of the land earmarked by the League of Nations for a Jewish homeland to the Arabs, the Arab League voted against formation of the state of Israel, turned down the Palestinian Arab state, permitted Jordan to illegally annex the land, and declared war on Israel, trying to eradicate her.

Repeatedly since 1947 through 2000, the Arabs have rejected a Palestinian Arab state if it meant coexistence with Israel, magically thinking that they could eliminate Israel. This intifadeh is the last desperate attempt to eliminate Israel, and, now that it is demonstrably failing and world opinion is turning against them as well, they have chosen to turn it into a case of decrying Israeli "prevention" of a Palestinian Arab state.

They are counting on the fact that enough time has gone by that most people have forgotten the verifiable historic facts (true) and they have never been above rewriting history to suit their own purposes (cf Jesus was Muslim, so was Abraham, the "naqba", Joseph's tomb, the Temple Mount...)

The settlements are a red herring. Were they to disappear tomorrow, there would not be peace in the Middle East, because the Arab world's goal has never been an independent Arab state side-by-side in peace with Israel. That already exists, and was formed before Israel. It's called Jordan. Israel has demonstrated her willingness to exchange land that she legally holds in exchange for peace; she has done so with Egypt and Jordan in the past. The fact that it has not happened with the paleos is entirely due to the paleo's behavior in refusing the land. Statute of limitations should have run out long ago.

For the lawyers out there, remind us of how the doctrine of adverse possession works. I seem to recall that it goes something like if one neighbor is in physical possession of land owned by the other neighbor (like with a fence built over a property line in error) and the actual owner is aware of the fact and does nothing to correct it, after a period of time (25 years?) ownership is transferred to the neighbor in physical possession. In this case, it's been 35 years.

And there is nothing to have prevented a Palestinian Arab state from being formed, settlements or not. Nothing (except Arab Muslim dogma) says that such a state must be Judenrein any more than Israel should expell her Arab/Muslim residents/citizens. But the Paleos think it's their God-given right to work in Israel, and to live in Israel if they choose. Apparently that's a one-way street, like so much of Arab Islam. We must tolerate any abominable bahavior on their part, but they won't tolerate our mere presence in their land, and certainly not our ability to practice our religion while guests there.

And there is precendence for Israel dismantling settlements. It was done in the case of the Sinai settlements. I could see it happening in this case as well, although I personally would expect the Arabs (yeah, you Saudis) to provide the financial compensation in return for the Judenrein state they want. And I would, in that case, also expect Israel at the very least to forbid entrance into Israel by non-Israeli Arab Muslims (sorta like Saudi Arabia in reverse.)

The settlements are not the real issue. The Paleos' ability to, under any circumstances, live peacefully next door to a Jewish state is the issue. Given the Arab Muslim's history of bloody borders, I'd say hell would freeze over sooner.

Excellent graphic presentation here.

Woo Hooooo!!! Thanks mommydoc! Thanks for the socio/political and historical rundown of the way things have been over the course of the 20th century.

I'd much rather see facts chewed on and debated than people be labeled anit-semitic or whatever. And it's from this foundation that (I hope) civil discussion can take place.

NTropy--thanks. I was sort of chagrined that it was so long. And I totally agree with you, but the issue of settlements is separate from the issue of anti-semitic comments. And much easier to discuss rationally, for obvious reasons.

Link to the yr 2000 map of the West Bank prepared for the French diplomatic service

.[Link: mondediplo.com...]

The doctrine of adverse possession does not apply, obviously, to nations. If it did, then the argument would be that no people under an occupying foreign army would have the legal right to resist the occupier or seek self-determination after 25 years of conquest. The Greeks started their 19th Century rebellion for their own nation after hundreds of years of Ottoman rule and occupation. So too the Arabs and people of the Balkans in WWI - fought against the Ottomans to establish their own self-determination.

The Palestinians are no different. The passage of 35 years does not lessen their inherent right...recognized by the UN...to resist foreign occupation.

As for 1967 being a "defensive war"....the UN has maintained that Israel was provoked, but attacked Egypt first....so the "right by conquest" claimed by some backers of Israel is really no different than any other nation that wages war as much for conquest of new land as self-protection.

The most notorious recent example is the Soviets and the Nazis took and carved up Poland....not just to get land for new Settlements and agriculture, but also for self-defense, as both countries believed they would be "vulnerable" unless they filled the large power vacuum that Poland was.....so as to lessen the chances of a large invading Army being able to manuver on the Flat Central Northern European Plain Poland was situated in and strike at them from any direction.

The "self-defense aggression" case against Poland by the Nazis and Soviets didn't work of course.....as the Armies marched and blood flowed like the world had never seen before - though at huge price, the Soviets got to keep a nice chunk of original Poland.

**********************************
The argument that "there were no Palestinians" before - therefore, they have no right as a new people to a nation, can be applied to most of subsaharan Africa, much of the Arab ME, and to the Latin/Central American nation-forming in the 19th century.

There was never a Ghana, or a Nigeria, a Libya, a Belize, or a US or Canada for that matter....before they established nations and became Canadians, Nigerians, etc...where before they had had identity as small scattered tribes, part of a larger Ummah, or as colonists from elsewhere.

However, the claim for Palestine is rather heavily supported by countries like Ghana...since they were there before Ghana came into being....and would resent the implication they had no right to become Ghanans because there was no Ghana before. And, those same Ghanans would of course fight like hell to become or remain Ghanans if some Bantu tribe from elsewhere said they once lived in Ghana a few thousand years ago and were returning to take most of Ghana as their own.

Try that link again......

West Bank Areas of Control and Settlement

I don't quite buy into the apartheid argument - since it's not a racial thing, but it does appear that the Bantustan strategy of divide and weaken a black people by creating economically crippled, undefensible by arms "mini-states" is something that may not have been too far from minds of many in the Israeli Defense and Interior Ministries.

Nastification Agenda #49

You continue to amaze me. If half of what you say is true, and you are putting no spin on your facts, we are in for a rough ride.

Do the jews have a claim on medina? I like that. We can trade claims with the arabs. They can keep medina and the center of the circumnambulation cult, and the jews get to keep Judea and Samaria.

Mommydoc:

Thanks for making the effort in #53. The truth bears repeating, but is unfortunately no match for the Big Lie in the wider world.

As for 1967 being a "defensive war"....the UN has maintained that Israel was provoked, but attacked Egypt first....so the "right by conquest" claimed by some backers of Israel is really no different than any other nation that wages war as much for conquest of new land as self-protection.

Egypt closed the Straights of Tiran to Israel prior to the 67 war. This was a casus belli (?sp), or an act of war, depending on one's perspective. Egypt also ordered the UN out of Sinai at the same time, breaking the extant armistice agreement. Egypt initiated hostilities. Furthermore, as the west bank is the only valuable piece of real estate (gaza hopelessly overpopulated and squalid) under discussion, it's worth noting that Jordan started the hostilities there, and THEN lost the west bank. Facts.

But why let facts get in the way?

some Bantu tribe from elsewhere said they once lived in Ghana a few thousand years ago and were returning to take most of Ghana as their own.

Bad analogy. Jews don't just 'say' they were there before, they were, and there has furthermore been a continuous jewsih presence there, whose numbers waxed and waned, since biblical times.

In any event, the pals are here, they exist, and they have to live somewhere. They have not demonstrated behaviour that would make their neighbours want to have them as neighbours,and if it wasn't for arab oil, they'd be getting as much attention as the sudanese, mauritanians, algerians and virtually all of subsaharan africa get from the west.

If it wasn't jews/non islamis they were fighting, they'd get the same degree of attention from their arab brothers (i. e. Saudis) as the other arab peons get from these frauds.

An interesting link....

I found a pretty good, even-handed discussion on the history of water rights controversies and water usage practices.....centering on the Jordan River aquifer and related watersheds affecting Lebanon, Jordan, the occupied territories, and Israel proper. Lot of neat history......since like out in the American West..water rights drive much of the politics and decision-making.

Water Controversies and Cooperation Between Israel and Neighbors

Warning: Mucho pages!

Thank you, Michael. Let us not forget the Syrians shelling Israel from the Golan Heights (literally the first shots fired) and the massing of Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian, Iraqi and Lebanese troops at the Israeli borders along with verbal declarations of war by these same countries. Nah, Israel would only have self-defense justification if she waited until they invaded. You're right; why let facts get in the way?

And didn't I distinctly ask for a lawyer's interpretation of adverse possession in the case of a neighbor who has refused the offer to take his land back in exchange for agreeing not to kill his neighbor's kids?

Nastification Agenda, #49 is really interesting. About Mahomet's ritual practices and the Babylonian Marduk prostration cult and circumambulation rites. Is there a source or two or three you recommend?

I ask because your post #50 at Bush Praises iSlam had an interesting bibliography. Perhaps you've been giving reading lists before and I just missed them.

One title you recommended was Norman Cohn's Warrant for Genocide. I know him as a ground-breaking scholar and author of Europe's Inner Demons and of In Pursuit of the Millenium. I searched Google for Warrant and the first hit was a horrid attack by one Peter Myers. His "refutation" of Cohn and defense of the authenticity of the Protocols begins as follows: after quoting a 5 line listing of Cohn's c.v., Myers writes "Only a Zionist of high rank would get such a writeup. Since Cohn is such a loyal Zionist, he can hardly be a neutral, unbiased observer." Such "thinking" and disdain for fact demonstrates why Islamic science is making such great contributions to humanity (none).

Michael--wait. It's a trap. It's essentially the second formula:

Ranbutan segues a discussion about pretty much anything into a discussion of the settlements, we all fall for it, and the thread degenerates from there.

Happened again right here. I propose a new strategy.

Most of us participate in his scripts because we don't want newcomers to assume that, by our silence, we agree. OTOH, responding to his trolling bait results in chaos and entire threads being hijacked. Thus, I think we should all just respond with these exact words: "Canned response #1" for the antisemitic bait and "Canned response #2" for the settlement bait. Newbies will get the hint that we don't agree, he doesn't get the argument he's looking for, and life goes on. Alternatively we could just channel Reagan with "There you go again" /channeling Reagan.

It's worth a try.

"There you go again"

Perfect. Canned repsonses are more work, but more effective. I post from 3 diff machines, so it wouldn't work for me. . .

I did notice, today, that someone's on good behaviour ;)

You would be correct if the Same-O information was in each post re: The Settlements, mommydoc..then a canned response to the same repetitious unchanging iterations would be valid.

But you know that my posts have typically have "gobs" of new stuff - though they do lead to reinforce the conclusion that the Settlements must go. So people read and respond to new claims...or in your particular crowd...new irritations.

So, did you bother to read the Israeli-commissioned poll, published in an Israeli newspaper indicating that America's backing of Israel is less strong than the Israelis hoped post 9/11? And the significant negatives (75%) regarding the Settlements being the main obstacle to peace?

Here's the poll again.

[Link: www.haaretzdaily.com...]

It's worth a gander because I would suggest that the poll shows the American public's opposition - to any American government changes in support for the Settlements or even a change in the USA's willingness to stand alone and be the "Safety Veto" at the UN - that the public outcry here might not be strong enough to deter....especially if.....

1. In the coming years, America finds its outreach to Muslim countries to help us win the WoT is severely crippled by those nations and the EUs perception that the US is completely biased towards supporting Israel and cannot be a fair, trusted partner in diplomacy or coalitions to stop terrorists.

2. In the future, America finds it's people are dying in terrorist actions, that we are losing billions, and overall, it's vital interests are being damaged by our support of Israel and it's occupation. We are now seeing the regular publishing by Muslims in the US of an alternate point of view of the ME by letter-writing campaigns, media outreach, and university activism seeking to link the Pal cause to a number of Leftist groups popular with. In some instances Leftist groups originally even created by, formerly led by...Leftist Jewish Americans. It appears the propaganda war for America's hearts and minds re: the ME has been initiated.

3. Events progress where real change just comes to the current status quo...unbidden. Arafat dies. Al Qaeda moves into all regions close to Israel and seizes both leadership from the competing factions and seizes on the Pal Occupation as it's most potent recruiting tool and gets thousands of eager new followers. Following Iraq, the Arabs and the EU offer a valid peace plan.

But then Israel says No! Not one Settlement goes! Because by that point all the Settlers vow to shoot at Israelis even....but they won't go....making it "impossible" to have Israel agree to peace terms.

*************************
I would say at that point, America would be forced to go with an imposed peace since Israeli assent couldn't occur. And, if Israel resisted, the US would finally back UN resolutions, cut off military, economic aid, and allow an oil embargo..... And LGF diehards would be absolutely dumfounded at the "American Munich" and swear they never had a clue it could happen...

Consider this poll and other posts my little effort to tickle you with a cluestick, mommydoc.

loathsome, Karen Armstrong

I like that....

Two years ago, when I knew nothing about Islam or Muhmmed, I bough her book.....

read about 20 pages before I put it down......nauseating.

I couldnt read it....

"occupied territories"

[Link: www.soci.niu.edu...]

"In using the word "illegal" in his address to the United Nations Security Council on March 12,
Secretary General Kofi Annan had no intention of entering the debate about the legality of Israel's
original action in occupying territory during the war of 1967, as implied by George P. Fletcher (Op-Ed,
March 21).

The secretary general referred, rather, to Israel's failure, in the 35 years that have since elapsed, to
accept the legal obligations that the status of an occupying power carries with it, and its actions —
several of which are referred to by Professor Fletcher — that run contrary to those obligations and have
therefore been declared illegal by the Security Council and the General Assembly.

The secretary general's objective in making this statement in the midst of such an agonizing crisis was
to persuade both Israeli and Palestinian leaders to halt the violence and return to dialogue with each
other. He remains firmly committed to the search for a just, comprehensive and lasting settlement of
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, negotiated between the parties on the basis of Security Council
Resolutions 242 and 338 and the principle of "land for peace," and fulfilling the vision affirmed by the
council last week in Resolution 1397 of "a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by
side within secure and recognized borders."

FREDERIC ECKHARD
Spokesman for the Secy. General
United Nations
New York, March 21, 2002

[Link: www.jcpa.org...]

united nations

[Link: www.israelnationalnews.com...]

[Link: www.weeklystandard.com...]

Yawn. Canned response #2.

Ranbutan

I think this part of mommydoc's post deserves consideration:

[T]here is nothing to have prevented a Palestinian Arab state from being formed, settlements or not. Nothing (except Arab Muslim dogma) says that such a state must be Judenrein any more than Israel should expell her Arab/Muslim residents/citizens. But the Paleos think it's their God-given right to work in Israel, and to live in Israel if they choose. Apparently that's a one-way street, like so much of Arab Islam. We must tolerate any abominable bahavior on their part, but they won't tolerate our mere presence in their land, and certainly not our ability to practice our religion while guests there.

I'd have to say your settlement arguement starts falling apart here and gains momentum further on.

Someone wrote that Israel was why the arab world hates america. Actually, since the assasination of Bobbie Kennedy in 1968 by Sirhan Sirhan it's pretty much been the notion in the US that Israel is the EXCUSE for the arab world (to hate the US) and Israel did nothing to prompt the assanination of Kennedy or anyone else.

However, the radical arab world and europe feel that making Israel discredited will somehow "change america's mind" on Israel it won't. Europe is now operating on this assumption politically very heavily. It won't work--For one key reason:

Two thirds of new americans now are hispanic and devoutly christian. Most are roman catholic, but there is an immense movement now in the hispanic community in the hispanic evangelical christian movement. Two-thirds of new churches in the hispanic community that are thriving are evangelical and not roman catholic.

Leave it to europe and the radical arab world then, to tick off not just one generation of christians (whom they call right-wingers irregardless of their voting)--but the next 3 generations.

Secondly, the "cowboy" label that europe denegrates america with shows americans how little europe knows about US history. The "white" cowboys picked up their dress and their roping cattle style from the hispanic indians who were in the west before them--it was not an anglo invention. Also, Levi Strauss' invention of "coveralls" (today's blue jeans) was first popular with the gauchos and their fame spread throughout the west largely on an hispanic word of mouth.

From a german jewish boy inventing "blue jeans" to the hispanic-indians inspiring the american cowboy--what is old is new again.

These hispanic christians did not convert for the Spaniards, the cowboys, the american indians--or even a jewish boy selling them new clothing to wear on the range.

If anyone in Israel thinks demographics works against jews in america they need to rethink that. The only thing older than "white' christians getting along well with jews--is hispanic catholics trading with jews.

I guess trying to make the bible a joke is their last ditch effort. It won't work. The west was never won by anyone and in the future the "cowboys" will have names like Rodriguez.

Israel has never seperated america from the world. American history being a bizaar melting pot has seperated america from the world. And I, for one like it that way. Let the idiots blame Israel.

To date the radical arabs haven't recruited one sizeable hispanic "cell" in prison to Islam.

The joke's on them for now--and 50 years to come.

Hardly, NTropy......just another example of Palestinian hypocrisy, of which there are many. But Israeli hypocrisy also exists....as the descendents of Canaan, Samaria, the Philistines and other Semites who existed there before and after the Hebrew tribe's first stint running the show are told they have no right to return, while people who have little or no Semitic genetic lineage to the ME in Russia, the USA, Ethiopia do by virtue of being Jewish by religion.

Both sides have their built-in injustices. But as things are, Israel was built on the deviation of the original Balfour Declaration that initially envisioned both Arab and Jew living together - to the weary Brits deciding that partition was the only way to keep the sides off each other's throats. Thus, they got stuck with an internal Arab population that they didn't want, and in later years built an agriculture and manufacturing base that relied on cheap Arab labor from the refugee areas, later from the occupied territories. Similar to how we capitalize of Mexican labor....except that we don't have an Army occupying Mexico...haven't cordoned off half of Mexico as areas the Mexicans are excluded from...and built thousands of "Yankee" Settlements that have progressively carved up the Mexican homeland into a number of geographically isolated "Bantustan-style" homelands. (In retrospect...many in the West are now saying rather than being stupid at turning down a "good deal" the PLA was correct in rejecting the Barak proposal that kept the Palestinians "locked" into isolated Bantustans - a proposal that would doom them into establishing a non-viable State)

Be that all as it may, relations are so bad between the sides that a second round of partition in Palestine is the only answer. Maybe in a hundred years, certainly not in anyone now living's lifetime....Israelis and Pals will begin to question such antipathy...and start getting together and singing Kumbaya. That's a long time off, if ever.

In the meantime....the world continues to take huge damage, the US in particular....from the ME conflict. In hindsight, I wish the Brits had been smarter and offered the Jews a homeland in N Australia, Labrador, S Africa (their own Bantustan-style nation), Madagascar, Patagonia, even a deal with the Soviets to settle Kamchatka with the Jews......but at the time Palestine made sense. The Brits didn't anticipate how deep the Arab hatred of the Jews would become, didn't anticipate how aggressive the original Zionist settlers would be in land acquisitions, and of course never anticipated the Holocaust and the flood of Jews after that, seeking to come to Palestine in numbers that dwarfed the figures the drafters of the Balfour Declaration had projected.

It is obvious though, that if the Jewish homeland had been created anywhere but smack dab in the middle of the Ummah....in any of the remote, relatively unprosperous, unpopulated areas mentioned before...the area would be prosperous even without the copious US aid sent, and Jews would live in relative peace with their neighbors.

But the Arabs are different, of course. They saw the Zionist state as not an opportunity, but as a threat and a humiliation of them...and as their campaigns failed, Jews began conquering and colonizing new lands....the anger and humiliation mounted 'till we got to today's level of blind, murderous rage.

When I said these "hispanic cowboys did not convert for the Spaniards"--I was referring to the unique kind of christianity that lives in mexico. Most of it's indian religious practices and roots went into their christianity very heavily and are still present. Yes, I do realize they were forcibly converted by the Spanish--but they did not have their indian identity wiped out. You'd have to be in the Southwest to know what I am talking about.

I'm simply saying that europe and the radical arab's world view that christians will abandon Israel and the bible--doesn't look likely. There are too many variables in america's support for Israel that are unique.

Hispanics are passionate about everything--but first and foremost they follow their own drummer. The evangelical movement in this quarter is very significant. It says that they are now mainstream and very pro-Israel surviving.

Ranbutan you were right on alot of things but saying that jews being "white" is not one of them. Also, mexicans aren't victims of "white" settlements any longer--I don't know where that came from. Most of the tension in the southwest is going on between the native americans and hispanics because the native tribes can't match the hispanic birthrates and that is causing problems.

But to say that jews aren't semites--It's like saying "one drop of black blood makes you all black" or not...or whatever. That's berkley babble-speak.

In america race is an extremely complicated issue. The black/white debate may still stoke a chord in the rest of the world but not in a country where black and white marry each other more than shoot at each other.

I guess what I sensed in your writing is that "white" jews--or those bleached up by years in europe aren't semites in some people's views. (I don't know if that is what you think ranbuttan or not--it's a guess)

I find that offensive. I have both german catholic and german jewish grandparents. I'm not catholic or jewish--I am descended from both. (And agnostic.)

I do agree with you, ranbuttan on the seperation part of the deal. Palestinians will never except that the mother and father of jesus was mary and joseph and not Fatima and muhammad.

On that--I agree with you. Israel needs to build a wall and have borders like any other nation. I can't understand how israel allows such porous borders under attack.

Excellent article on the history of the Balfour declaration and British Mandate, including Arab obstructionism from the start, despite repeated concessions to them, starting with the establishment of Jordan, which was not part of the Balfour Declaration.

No amount of concession will ever placate them until Israel is annhilated. Then, of course, they will start on the rest of the world.

Oops, my bad. They already have! Israel is a microcosm of what we have to expect in the rest of the world as Arab Muslims reach population plurality. Just as Jews are the canaries in the moral coal mines of the world, so too is Israel a proxy for what to expect in the rest of the world when Arab Muslims are a plurality.

Their sense of entitlement knows no bounds. They will use every legal mechanism as a weapon against those who wrote them (cf: free speech, religious freedom, immigration laws, social services...) in places in which they are in the minority while denying the same to anyone who is not an Arab Muslim in the areas in which they are in power.

And here is something new to ponder about the so-called moderate muslims. I will grant you that they have no terroristic aims, that they even think the extremists' actions and aims are dead wrong, but if and when they become the majority, will they go along with the establishment of shariah rule for non-muslims? Will they go along with dhimmitude? If so, they are part of the problem.

Ranbutan

It is my understanding that the current Palistinian popultation has never been able to establish valid genological evidence that they are decended from the Canaanites, Philistines or Samarians. The Samarians are a story wholly unto themselves anyway. It has always been my understanding that the current "palestinians" were nomadic bedouins.

I have a master history teacher who has a habit of saying the American southwest was stolen from Mexico. Since his class is almost exclusively hispanic I'm pretty sure he's just playing to his audience. There are some Mexicans that would take that sort of talk seriously though. Thus everything from L.A. to Albuquerque is a "white" settlement to them.

I gots to go…I hope to continue later.

Ranbutan again -

Re: Bantustan style homeland. I'll be lazy in sourcing but as far as I remember, that particular idea has been discredited. The final (unpublished) agreement was nothing of the sort. I seem to recall hearing or reading about that from O'Reilly Factor.

Re: Jewish homeland. You seem to miss the entire Jewish history in the Middle East. Israel was reestablished from what had been for at least a couple of thousand years their homeland. This was not a creation out of nothing.

In hindsight, I wish the Brits had been smarter and offered the Jews a homeland in N Australia, Labrador, S Africa (their own Bantustan-style nation), Madagascar, Patagonia, even a deal with the Soviets to settle Kamchatka with the Jews

That's plain silly. There is no Jewish history in any of these places and really it had little to do with Great Britain being magnanimous and offering anything.

The Jews would have resettled in the ME regardless. Remember, I'm one of those "Bible-thumpers". Scripture says they would return and it also says that it would be a problem.

It is obvious though, that if the Jewish homeland had been created anywhere but smack dab in the middle of the Ummah....in any of the remote, relatively unprosperous, unpopulated areas mentioned before...the area would be prosperous even without the copious US aid sent, and Jews would live in relative peace with their neighbors.

Baloney! Check your history. Jews have been hated throughout time wherever they have settled in numbers. Europe during WW2 (and growing again), Russia before that. It wouldn't have mattered.

And I fail to see what part settlements played in the Islamic / Jewish conflicts prior to 1967. The settlements against which you argue didn't exist yet Israel's neighboring nations still were trying to push her into the sea. The fact that there are settlements today is therefore nothing more than one addtional thorn in the sides of Jordan, Egypt, Syria/Lebannon, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia but certainly isn't the reason. Those "indigenous" Palestinians are simply being cynically used by the surrounding nations in an attempt to effect what they couldn't accomplish via direct armed conflict.

#74 mommydoc

Bravo. Encore. Encore.

#75 Ntropy

Ditto. With oak leaf cluster, swords, double pike and twist.

Thank you, Bronteboy, but did you miss my triple axel?

#39 - Bill

Funny that you are a 'Bloom' short for 'Bloomquist'. I know a family that called themselves 'Rosenberg' when moving to America, without realizing it was a Jewish name.

Also reminds me of the joke about an absent-minded Jew who was in the line at Ellis Island, waiting to be handed out his name. He was told to remember to ask for a nice Jewish name (eg Moishe Goldberg, or other stereotypical name)...

When he got to the front of the line and was asked his name, he replied 'schoyn vergessen' (I forgot in Yiddish). That is how he became known as Sean Furguson.

#39 - Bill

Funny that you are a 'Bloom' short for 'Bloomquist'. I know a family that called themselves 'Rosenberg' when moving to America, without realizing it was a Jewish name.

Also reminds me of the joke about an absent-minded Jew who was in the line at Ellis Island, waiting to be handed out his name. He was told to remember to ask for a nice Jewish name (eg Moishe Goldberg, or other stereotypical name)...

When he got to the front of the line and was asked his name, he replied 'schoyn vergessen' (I forgot in Yiddish). That is how he became known as Sean Ferguson.