Have you ever wondered what the rest of the world watches on television? Surely, you think, they HAVE to be seeing better stuff than I - no world's dumbest compilations, no vicious bitches wearing heels and catfighting in Beverly Hills, no fashion - dance - singing amateurs acting moronic for my delectation.......
Actually, the rest of the world is watching crap.
Palestinian Media Watch
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=1262
QUOTE:
"Shamekh Alawneh, a lecturer in modern history at Al-Quds Open University, says the Jews invented the connection to the Wall for political purposes, to convince European Jews and Zionists to come to "Palestine."
"It has no historical roots," he said on a television program called Jerusalem - History and Culture. "This is political terminology to win the hearts and the support of the Zionists in Europe, so they would emigrate and come to Palestine. Nothing more!"
End quote
Go ahead and read the rest of the article.
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=1262
More delightful vignettes of Palestinian truth can be found elsewhere on the Palestinian Media Watch site.
http://palwatch.org/
You should really check out the creative approach to Palestinian history from Ramallah - it's not just ignorant American and European activists doing the inventing, it's also Arab "academics".
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=495
If it weren't for Israel, Palestinian literature would not exist. There would be no poetry, no fiction, no fantasy........
===============================================
Hat-tip: Jameel, via Atboth.
===============================================
Thursday, August 20, 2009
US State Department: Jerusalem is capitol of Palestine
Per the US State Department, as reflected by the United States Consul General, Jerusalem is NOT the capitol of Israel, despite the knesset and government ministries being located there - it is the capitol of Palestine, even though the Palestinian authority is headquartered in Ramallah.
Yes, that is a US government representative that stated that. Your tax dollars at work.
The consulate's website did not mention Israel in any way, and referred only to Palestinian affairs.
A letter requesting clarification received this response:
"Thank you for your feedback on the U.S. Consulate General Jerusalem's Website. Just to clarify, the Consulate General in Jerusalem is the principal representation to the Palestinian Authority. We also provide services to American citizens in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza.
"The U.S. embassy to Israel is in Tel Aviv and is focused on the bilateral relationship with Israel. Their website is http://usembassy-israel.org.il/. The American Center in Jerusalem also provides information about the United States to the Israeli public.
Their website is http://usembassy-israel.org.il/ac/ .
"Jerusalem is a final status issue. Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to resolve its status during negotiations. We will support their efforts to reach agreements on all final status issues."
SOURCE:
http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2009/08/is-this-us-policy-recognize-east.html
It would appear that the State Department has unilaterally decided to deviate from official US policy.
The United States Jerusalem Embassy Act (1995):
"Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999".
Section 214 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2003:
"The Congress maintains its commitment to relocating the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem ... "
U.S House of Representatives concurrent resolution 152 (June 5, 2007):
"Commends Israel for its administration of the undivided city of Jerusalem for the past 40 years, during which Israel has respected the rights of all religious groups;
Reiterates its commitment to the provisions of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 and calls upon the President and all United States officials to abide by its provisions; "
Despite the Jerusalem Embassy Act being suspended annually by the president in a futile act of pandering to the Europeans and Arabs, the Administration "remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem".
In consequence, official U.S. documents and web sites refer to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Perhaps the State Department considers itself a separate country? Not part of the United States at all?
It's quite possible, after all they do seem at times to act quite contrary to American interests.
Feel free to query Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about this matter.
She is currently at this address:
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street North West, Washington, DC 20520.
202-647-4000
If you send her a letter, please be polite and courteous, like you would to a leader of a foreign nation, or one of our erstwhile allies who needs to be won over to our side. Do not bring up secondary matters, and keep your epistle simple. Thank you.
==========================================================
Crossposted at my own blog: http://grantpatel.blogspot.com/
==========================================================
Yes, that is a US government representative that stated that. Your tax dollars at work.
The consulate's website did not mention Israel in any way, and referred only to Palestinian affairs.
A letter requesting clarification received this response:
"Thank you for your feedback on the U.S. Consulate General Jerusalem's Website. Just to clarify, the Consulate General in Jerusalem is the principal representation to the Palestinian Authority. We also provide services to American citizens in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza.
"The U.S. embassy to Israel is in Tel Aviv and is focused on the bilateral relationship with Israel. Their website is http://usembassy-israel.org.il/. The American Center in Jerusalem also provides information about the United States to the Israeli public.
Their website is http://usembassy-israel.org.il/ac/ .
"Jerusalem is a final status issue. Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to resolve its status during negotiations. We will support their efforts to reach agreements on all final status issues."
SOURCE:
http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2009/08/is-this-us-policy-recognize-east.html
It would appear that the State Department has unilaterally decided to deviate from official US policy.
The United States Jerusalem Embassy Act (1995):
"Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999".
Section 214 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2003:
"The Congress maintains its commitment to relocating the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem ... "
U.S House of Representatives concurrent resolution 152 (June 5, 2007):
"Commends Israel for its administration of the undivided city of Jerusalem for the past 40 years, during which Israel has respected the rights of all religious groups;
Reiterates its commitment to the provisions of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 and calls upon the President and all United States officials to abide by its provisions; "
Despite the Jerusalem Embassy Act being suspended annually by the president in a futile act of pandering to the Europeans and Arabs, the Administration "remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem".
In consequence, official U.S. documents and web sites refer to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Perhaps the State Department considers itself a separate country? Not part of the United States at all?
It's quite possible, after all they do seem at times to act quite contrary to American interests.
Feel free to query Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about this matter.
She is currently at this address:
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street North West, Washington, DC 20520.
202-647-4000
If you send her a letter, please be polite and courteous, like you would to a leader of a foreign nation, or one of our erstwhile allies who needs to be won over to our side. Do not bring up secondary matters, and keep your epistle simple. Thank you.
==========================================================
Crossposted at my own blog: http://grantpatel.blogspot.com/
==========================================================
RIGHT OF RETURN, OR AN INDEPENDENT PALESTINE?
Hamas deputy leader Abu Marzouk: "We reject any deal that does not recognize the right of return... The Palestinian people will never give up this sacred right. Our people have been fighting for 58 years to achieve the right of return for all those who were expelled from their homeland."
Hamas spokesman Razi Hamad: "(Olmert) is trying to bypass the core of the Palestinian cause, namely the right of return for the refugees."
Statements like these show clearly why one cannot trust the Palestinians.
The claimed 'right of return', if applied equitably across the board, would destroy Israel, and reduce and return Jews to second-class status in the Arab countries they were forced to flee - without improving the conditions of the average Palestinian living in Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. It would solve nothing, but merely give the Arabs back the first class status they assumed in the countries they conquered.
It is, truth be told, naught more than a demand for Israel's destruction.If the Arabs do not give up the demand of a 'return', there can never be an independent Palestine.
[There actually already is an independent Palestinian state - it's called Jordan, but the government there wants no part of the Palestinian movements. They've had more than enough guff from those folks already, and effectively told the Pals to go fly a kite. Like all Arab governments, they also pay the Pals to keep them at a distance.]
You will undoubtedly note several things:
1. Expelled. The problem with that word is that hardly any Arabs were expelled from the mandate territory - most were encouraged to leave by the Arab states so that they would not get in the way of the victorious Arab armies exterminating the Jews. They were promised that in a few months they would return to take possession of the property of the defeated Jews. There were a number who fled ahead of Zionist forces. And some of them were encouraged forcefully to do so. Which is regrettable, yes, but a very minor issue. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the Arabs who left the mandate territory left because their brother Arabs asked them to do so.
2. Expelled. The problem with that word is that most of the Sephardim who left the Arab lands were expelled. They were forced to leave Arab countries, by Arab leaders, who supported the Arab attempt to loot and despoil the Holy Land and exterminate the Jews. This in contrast to the alleged refugees, who voluntarily left the Holy Land as their brethren suggested, to wait out the war with their relatives in Cairo, Amman, and Beirut.
3 Expelled. The problem with that word is that huge numbers of the 'Palestinians' were expelled from Jordan during Black September, when their attempt to take over the country failed and King Hussein triumphed over Yasser Arafat's forces. Several years later, Yasser Arafat's forces were expelled from Beirut, because once again they had attempted to take over a country - and in that attempt slaughtered several thousand Christian Arabs, and wrecked Lebanon. Several years afterwards the Kuweitis also expelled Palestinians, after their Palestinian guests had enthusiastically supported Saddam Hussein's occupation.
Oslo was, in that regard, a godsend for the Tunisians - who were also mighty relieved to see the last of the Palestinians.The Palestinian cause seems to be largely loot, murder, and take over.
PALESTINIANS: BETTER THAN THE JEWS
It is not that they are more believable than Israelis, or more like everybody else, or more admirable, or more truthful - the problem is that the Israeli cause is identified with Jews. And anyone who believes that Jews will get a fair shake may not have been paying strict attention these last few centuries.
Jews keep pointing out inconvenient truths.
Whereas Palestinians playing the poor little victim card are just so much more lovable.
No wonder you just want to hug them.
POPULATION TRANSFERS
Unless it is recognized that the population transfer implied by the division of the mandate territories has already taken place, there cannot ever be peace between the Israelis and the Arabs.
Most Jews left the Muslim world - let us ignore for the moment that they were forced to leave.
Most non-Jews left the part of the mandate assigned to the Jews - let us ignore for the moment that they did so voluntarily because they were promised a share in the eventual loot.
The net effect is actually remarkably one-sided. Hardly any Jews left in Alexandria, Aden, or Tetouan. Isolated pockets surrounded here and there elsewhere, scattered and defiant.
On the other hand, there are still tons of Arabs left in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Galilea, and Samaria. Nothing but Arabs in Gaza. If the Golan is dense with anything, it is Arabs. Bethelehem is filled with them. So is Nazareth. And Hebron. And Shechem. And.....
Hamas spokesman Razi Hamad: "(Olmert) is trying to bypass the core of the Palestinian cause, namely the right of return for the refugees."
Statements like these show clearly why one cannot trust the Palestinians.
The claimed 'right of return', if applied equitably across the board, would destroy Israel, and reduce and return Jews to second-class status in the Arab countries they were forced to flee - without improving the conditions of the average Palestinian living in Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. It would solve nothing, but merely give the Arabs back the first class status they assumed in the countries they conquered.
It is, truth be told, naught more than a demand for Israel's destruction.If the Arabs do not give up the demand of a 'return', there can never be an independent Palestine.
[There actually already is an independent Palestinian state - it's called Jordan, but the government there wants no part of the Palestinian movements. They've had more than enough guff from those folks already, and effectively told the Pals to go fly a kite. Like all Arab governments, they also pay the Pals to keep them at a distance.]
You will undoubtedly note several things:
1. Expelled. The problem with that word is that hardly any Arabs were expelled from the mandate territory - most were encouraged to leave by the Arab states so that they would not get in the way of the victorious Arab armies exterminating the Jews. They were promised that in a few months they would return to take possession of the property of the defeated Jews. There were a number who fled ahead of Zionist forces. And some of them were encouraged forcefully to do so. Which is regrettable, yes, but a very minor issue. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the Arabs who left the mandate territory left because their brother Arabs asked them to do so.
2. Expelled. The problem with that word is that most of the Sephardim who left the Arab lands were expelled. They were forced to leave Arab countries, by Arab leaders, who supported the Arab attempt to loot and despoil the Holy Land and exterminate the Jews. This in contrast to the alleged refugees, who voluntarily left the Holy Land as their brethren suggested, to wait out the war with their relatives in Cairo, Amman, and Beirut.
3 Expelled. The problem with that word is that huge numbers of the 'Palestinians' were expelled from Jordan during Black September, when their attempt to take over the country failed and King Hussein triumphed over Yasser Arafat's forces. Several years later, Yasser Arafat's forces were expelled from Beirut, because once again they had attempted to take over a country - and in that attempt slaughtered several thousand Christian Arabs, and wrecked Lebanon. Several years afterwards the Kuweitis also expelled Palestinians, after their Palestinian guests had enthusiastically supported Saddam Hussein's occupation.
Oslo was, in that regard, a godsend for the Tunisians - who were also mighty relieved to see the last of the Palestinians.The Palestinian cause seems to be largely loot, murder, and take over.
PALESTINIANS: BETTER THAN THE JEWS
It is not that they are more believable than Israelis, or more like everybody else, or more admirable, or more truthful - the problem is that the Israeli cause is identified with Jews. And anyone who believes that Jews will get a fair shake may not have been paying strict attention these last few centuries.
Jews keep pointing out inconvenient truths.
Whereas Palestinians playing the poor little victim card are just so much more lovable.
No wonder you just want to hug them.
POPULATION TRANSFERS
Unless it is recognized that the population transfer implied by the division of the mandate territories has already taken place, there cannot ever be peace between the Israelis and the Arabs.
Most Jews left the Muslim world - let us ignore for the moment that they were forced to leave.
Most non-Jews left the part of the mandate assigned to the Jews - let us ignore for the moment that they did so voluntarily because they were promised a share in the eventual loot.
The net effect is actually remarkably one-sided. Hardly any Jews left in Alexandria, Aden, or Tetouan. Isolated pockets surrounded here and there elsewhere, scattered and defiant.
On the other hand, there are still tons of Arabs left in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Galilea, and Samaria. Nothing but Arabs in Gaza. If the Golan is dense with anything, it is Arabs. Bethelehem is filled with them. So is Nazareth. And Hebron. And Shechem. And.....
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Ann Coulter comes out of the closet
No, she isn't gay. At least I hope not - I would NEVER want another woman to suffer!
She came out of the closet as someone who at the very least seems to have issues about Jews. I'm putting it lightly (and trying to avoid that word "anti-Semite" - it's SO overused, don't you think?)
Which is very Christian of her, though many other, normal, Christians have moved on from the middle-ages.
Friar Yid takes her to task:
"Rather than criticize his church or Lynn's professional career as a Church-State Activist, Ann instead prefers to call him a fake minister, (and presumably a fake Christian,) who hates religion. A point she makes by accusing him of being a Jew."
http://friaryid.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-not-just-come-out-and-say-it.html
[It's his opinion piece about Ann Coulter's latest stream of bat's piss, which you may read here, though why you would want to is beyond me. It is utterly vile, as you no doubt expect from her and her cohorts at World Nut Daily. Vomit.]
He (Friar Yid) also takes her apologists to task - several of whom at least claim to be Jewish. Which is NOT unusual. Not only are there Jews who stress their Jewishness on the far left, proudly asserting their Jewishness when slamming Israel or other Jews, but there are also such people on the ultra-right, who make sure that you know they are Jewish when they defend a fellow-traveler who said something 'unfortunate'.
If they were Chinese-American, we would call them banana. Blacks, of course, are familiar with Oreos.
She came out of the closet as someone who at the very least seems to have issues about Jews. I'm putting it lightly (and trying to avoid that word "anti-Semite" - it's SO overused, don't you think?)
Which is very Christian of her, though many other, normal, Christians have moved on from the middle-ages.
Friar Yid takes her to task:
"Rather than criticize his church or Lynn's professional career as a Church-State Activist, Ann instead prefers to call him a fake minister, (and presumably a fake Christian,) who hates religion. A point she makes by accusing him of being a Jew."
http://friaryid.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-not-just-come-out-and-say-it.html
[It's his opinion piece about Ann Coulter's latest stream of bat's piss, which you may read here, though why you would want to is beyond me. It is utterly vile, as you no doubt expect from her and her cohorts at World Nut Daily. Vomit.]
He (Friar Yid) also takes her apologists to task - several of whom at least claim to be Jewish. Which is NOT unusual. Not only are there Jews who stress their Jewishness on the far left, proudly asserting their Jewishness when slamming Israel or other Jews, but there are also such people on the ultra-right, who make sure that you know they are Jewish when they defend a fellow-traveler who said something 'unfortunate'.
If they were Chinese-American, we would call them banana. Blacks, of course, are familiar with Oreos.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Palestinian organs - a Swedish leftwing obscenity
Palestinians spread blood libel, Swedish newspaper happily assists.
A leading Swedish newspaper reported this week that Israeli soldiers are abducting Palestinians in order to steal their organs, a claim that prompted furious condemnation and accusations of anti-Semitic blood libel from a rival publication.
QUOTE:
"They plunder the organs of our sons," read the headline in Sweden's largest daily newspaper, the left-leaning Aftonbladet, which devoted a double spread in its cultural section to the article.
[cut]
"'Our sons are used as involuntary organ donors,' relatives of Khaled from Nablus said to me, as did the mother of Raed from Jenin as well as the uncles of Machmod and Nafes from Gaza, who all had disappeared for a few days and returned by night, dead and autopsied," writes author Donald Boström in his report.
End quote
Another newspaper, Sydsvenskan, ran an opinion piece under the headline "Antisemitbladet" deliberately twisting Aftonbladet's name.
Quote:
"We have heard the story before, in one form or the other. It follows the traditional pattern of conspiracy theory: a great number of loose threads that the theorist tempts the reader to tie into a neat knot without having been provided with any proven connection whatsoever," writes leading columnist Mats Skogkär of Sydsvenskan.
"Whispers in the dark. Anonymous sources. Rumors. That is all it takes. After all we all know what they [the Jews] are like, don't we: inhuman, hardened. Capable of anything," the opinion piece says. "Now all that remains is the defense, equally predictable: 'Anti-Semitism' No, no, just criticism of Israel."
End quote
SOURCE - Ha'aretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1108384.html
Jerusalem Post report:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418641250&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
The libelous Aftonbladet article can be read here:
http://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/article5652583.ab
The Sydsvenskan counterblast can be read here:
http://blogg.sydsvenskan.se/snallposten/2009/08/17/antisemitbladet/
And, if you wish to explain to the Swedish Governement precisely what you think, you may do so here:
Consulate General of Sweden in San Francisco
Consul General: Barbro S. Osher
Tel: 415.788.2631
Fax: 415.788.6841
120 Montgomery Street, Suite 2175,San Francisco, CA 94104
Email: sf@consulateofsweden.org
Please be polite when you write - free translation programs are perfectly miserable at translating obscenities from English into Swedish.
====================================================
Crospposted here: http://majorquestionmarks.blogspot.com/2009/08/palestinian-organs-swedish-leftwing.html
====================================================
A leading Swedish newspaper reported this week that Israeli soldiers are abducting Palestinians in order to steal their organs, a claim that prompted furious condemnation and accusations of anti-Semitic blood libel from a rival publication.
QUOTE:
"They plunder the organs of our sons," read the headline in Sweden's largest daily newspaper, the left-leaning Aftonbladet, which devoted a double spread in its cultural section to the article.
[cut]
"'Our sons are used as involuntary organ donors,' relatives of Khaled from Nablus said to me, as did the mother of Raed from Jenin as well as the uncles of Machmod and Nafes from Gaza, who all had disappeared for a few days and returned by night, dead and autopsied," writes author Donald Boström in his report.
End quote
Another newspaper, Sydsvenskan, ran an opinion piece under the headline "Antisemitbladet" deliberately twisting Aftonbladet's name.
Quote:
"We have heard the story before, in one form or the other. It follows the traditional pattern of conspiracy theory: a great number of loose threads that the theorist tempts the reader to tie into a neat knot without having been provided with any proven connection whatsoever," writes leading columnist Mats Skogkär of Sydsvenskan.
"Whispers in the dark. Anonymous sources. Rumors. That is all it takes. After all we all know what they [the Jews] are like, don't we: inhuman, hardened. Capable of anything," the opinion piece says. "Now all that remains is the defense, equally predictable: 'Anti-Semitism' No, no, just criticism of Israel."
End quote
SOURCE - Ha'aretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1108384.html
Jerusalem Post report:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418641250&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
The libelous Aftonbladet article can be read here:
http://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/article5652583.ab
The Sydsvenskan counterblast can be read here:
http://blogg.sydsvenskan.se/snallposten/2009/08/17/antisemitbladet/
And, if you wish to explain to the Swedish Governement precisely what you think, you may do so here:
Consulate General of Sweden in San Francisco
Consul General: Barbro S. Osher
Tel: 415.788.2631
Fax: 415.788.6841
120 Montgomery Street, Suite 2175,San Francisco, CA 94104
Email: sf@consulateofsweden.org
Please be polite when you write - free translation programs are perfectly miserable at translating obscenities from English into Swedish.
====================================================
Crospposted here: http://majorquestionmarks.blogspot.com/2009/08/palestinian-organs-swedish-leftwing.html
====================================================
Palestine does not exist, and should not exist
Everybody seems to agree that Israel should allow (or enable) the Palestinians to create the state that is rightfully theirs.
Except, it isn't.
Palestine is a geographic term of Roman origin. Palestinians, therefore, are the people who live in Palestine. At present, the "Palestinian" population consists of Jews, Arabs, Turks, Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, and several Baptist missionaries who can't read maps and figure out how to leave (they've been there for almost a century, which is somewhat longer than many of the Arabs).
In 1948 the Jews formed a state in the areas that they controlled. Meaning more or less the areas where they were both a majority and the dominant group. They extended equal rights to non-Jews. The other Arabs were appalled, and with British encouragement (and several ex-Nazis advising them) tried to destroy the new state, fully intending to slaughter the Jews. They failed. The Arab war against Israel was fought by Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq, acting on behalf of the entire Arab umma. The idea of a separate state for "Palestinians" was rejected at that time by the Arabs, and in any case, were unconcerned with the weal or woe of the "Palestinians".
The Arabs lost.
In 1967 the Arabs again fought against Israel, again rejecting the concept of a Palestinian state. This time, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan fought on behalf of the entire Arab umma. The goal was not the creation of a state for Arabs, but the destruction of a state for Jews. The fate of the Palestinians was not germane, exterminating the Jews was, again, the goal.
The Arabs lost.
In 1973, the Egyptian and Syrian armies launched a surprise attack. Their aim was to wipe out the shame of previous failures to slaughter the Jews and conquer Israel. The idea of liberating the Palestinian Arabs, most of whom lived in Jordan and miserable refugee camps in Lebanon, was not foremost, and possibly not even hindmost, in the minds of the generals, sheikhs, and politicians of the Arab world at that time - their lost honor was the fuel that drove their war.
The Arabs lost.
There never has been a Palestinian Arab state.
The Palestinian Arabs exist as a people only in opposition to the Jewish state. Palestinian nationalism, until 1967, existed solely as a hatred of Jews. Since 1967 Palestinian nationalism has been fuelled by the discrimination against "Palestinians" by Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt - who conspire to keep them in camps, or deny them the rights of citizens, though supporting their desire to kill the Jews. The only way that the Palestinian Arabs will win the respect, love even, of other Arabs, is if they restore Arab pride by eradicating the dishonor of three disastrous wars and exterminating the Israelis.
Given that the only reason that there are Palestinians is the existence of Israel, the removal of Israel will mean the end of the Palestinians.
Perhaps that is why the world backs the creation of a Palestinian state.
Two birds with one stone.
Except, it isn't.
Palestine is a geographic term of Roman origin. Palestinians, therefore, are the people who live in Palestine. At present, the "Palestinian" population consists of Jews, Arabs, Turks, Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, and several Baptist missionaries who can't read maps and figure out how to leave (they've been there for almost a century, which is somewhat longer than many of the Arabs).
In 1948 the Jews formed a state in the areas that they controlled. Meaning more or less the areas where they were both a majority and the dominant group. They extended equal rights to non-Jews. The other Arabs were appalled, and with British encouragement (and several ex-Nazis advising them) tried to destroy the new state, fully intending to slaughter the Jews. They failed. The Arab war against Israel was fought by Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq, acting on behalf of the entire Arab umma. The idea of a separate state for "Palestinians" was rejected at that time by the Arabs, and in any case, were unconcerned with the weal or woe of the "Palestinians".
The Arabs lost.
In 1967 the Arabs again fought against Israel, again rejecting the concept of a Palestinian state. This time, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan fought on behalf of the entire Arab umma. The goal was not the creation of a state for Arabs, but the destruction of a state for Jews. The fate of the Palestinians was not germane, exterminating the Jews was, again, the goal.
The Arabs lost.
In 1973, the Egyptian and Syrian armies launched a surprise attack. Their aim was to wipe out the shame of previous failures to slaughter the Jews and conquer Israel. The idea of liberating the Palestinian Arabs, most of whom lived in Jordan and miserable refugee camps in Lebanon, was not foremost, and possibly not even hindmost, in the minds of the generals, sheikhs, and politicians of the Arab world at that time - their lost honor was the fuel that drove their war.
The Arabs lost.
There never has been a Palestinian Arab state.
The Palestinian Arabs exist as a people only in opposition to the Jewish state. Palestinian nationalism, until 1967, existed solely as a hatred of Jews. Since 1967 Palestinian nationalism has been fuelled by the discrimination against "Palestinians" by Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt - who conspire to keep them in camps, or deny them the rights of citizens, though supporting their desire to kill the Jews. The only way that the Palestinian Arabs will win the respect, love even, of other Arabs, is if they restore Arab pride by eradicating the dishonor of three disastrous wars and exterminating the Israelis.
Given that the only reason that there are Palestinians is the existence of Israel, the removal of Israel will mean the end of the Palestinians.
Perhaps that is why the world backs the creation of a Palestinian state.
Two birds with one stone.
Friday, August 14, 2009
ISLAMIC EMIRATE OF GAZA
It turns out that Hamas is a bunch of pussies. Despite their stated loathing of the Western World, and their aim to impose an Islamic dictatorship over the Levant, they just aren't extremist enough.
Yes, they've killed hundreds of Fatah members. Yes, they've assassinated dozens of Christian notables in Gaza and the West bank. And yes, they have indeed murdered any number of civilians - in Gaza, Israel, the West Bank, and even Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.
This is of no consequence.
They just aren't sincere enough for the Wahhabis.
Quote:
"Hundreds of worshippers at Ibn-Taymiyah mosque declared Gaza an "Islamic emirate". The mosque's imam - Abdul-Latif Moussa - and armed supporters swore to fight to the death rather than hand over authority of the mosque to Hamas. Jund Ansar Allah (Army of the Helpers of God) gained some prominence two months ago when it staged a failed attack on a border crossing between Gaza and Israel. The group is very critical of Hamas, which governs Gaza, accusing the Islamist group of not being Islamist enough. "
End quote
SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8202553.stm
Quote:
"Hamas said a grenade fired from the mosque killed one of its fighters. The other fatalities were reported to be gunmen, and a child was also killed. "
End quote
The fierce gunbattle between Jund Ansar Allah ("Muslims") and Hamas ("moderates") is ongoing. Statements in support of Hamas from various European politicians and the city of Berkeley are expected soon.
====================================
Crossposted here: http://atthebackofthehill.blogspot.com/2009/08/islamic-emirate-of-gaza.html
For more information about the Islamic Emirate of Gaza, or to book tours, please contact Ms. Mary Robinson or Mr. George Galloway.
====================================
Yes, they've killed hundreds of Fatah members. Yes, they've assassinated dozens of Christian notables in Gaza and the West bank. And yes, they have indeed murdered any number of civilians - in Gaza, Israel, the West Bank, and even Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.
This is of no consequence.
They just aren't sincere enough for the Wahhabis.
Quote:
"Hundreds of worshippers at Ibn-Taymiyah mosque declared Gaza an "Islamic emirate". The mosque's imam - Abdul-Latif Moussa - and armed supporters swore to fight to the death rather than hand over authority of the mosque to Hamas. Jund Ansar Allah (Army of the Helpers of God) gained some prominence two months ago when it staged a failed attack on a border crossing between Gaza and Israel. The group is very critical of Hamas, which governs Gaza, accusing the Islamist group of not being Islamist enough. "
End quote
SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8202553.stm
Quote:
"Hamas said a grenade fired from the mosque killed one of its fighters. The other fatalities were reported to be gunmen, and a child was also killed. "
End quote
The fierce gunbattle between Jund Ansar Allah ("Muslims") and Hamas ("moderates") is ongoing. Statements in support of Hamas from various European politicians and the city of Berkeley are expected soon.
====================================
Crossposted here: http://atthebackofthehill.blogspot.com/2009/08/islamic-emirate-of-gaza.html
For more information about the Islamic Emirate of Gaza, or to book tours, please contact Ms. Mary Robinson or Mr. George Galloway.
====================================
Fatah and a moderate resolution of the conflict
Other bloggers have already mentioned that the Fatah conference in Bethlehem has yielded unfortunate statements from the moderates in the Palestinian armed peace camp.
Such as the complete rejection of any Jewish claim to Jerusalem, the Jewishness of any part of Jerusalem, or even any Jewish presence in Jerusalem.
Jerusalem should, according to moderate Palestinians, be Kike-free.
Fatah, of course, is the moderate faction of the PLO, chaired by moderate Mahmoud Abbas, and the party to which moderate negotiator Saeb Erekat belongs.
The moderate Palestinian position is that there will be NO NEGOTIATION with Israel, NO RECOGNITION of Israel, and that the armed struggle against Israel will continue INDEFINITELY.
This is the MODERATE position. We know it is moderate because the quartet supports the PLO.
The quartet consists of the USA, Russia, the Europeans, and the United Nations. Who all favour a peaceable solution, and support moderate points of view. They are balanced. They have perspective. They represent the sincerity, resolve, and goodwill of the international community.
They understand moderation.
Other moderate elements of the moderate Palestinian position are that all Arab murderers in Israeli jails should be feed, imports of cement, missiles, lead, and nitrocellulose into Gaza should be unimpeded, and that Israel must withdraw from all strategically important areas.
Oh, and they also seek rapprochement with Iran. Also moderate.
You can find more about all of it here:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/talking/71_noes.html
The results of the Fatah conference in Bethlehem will be enthusiastically endorsed by many leading American and European politicians. Because Fatah are moderates, unlike Hamas.
We're all in agreement that Hamas is not moderate, right?
After all, Hamas still holds to the depressingly antiquated dicta of the Khartoum conference: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel.
How absurd!
Such as the complete rejection of any Jewish claim to Jerusalem, the Jewishness of any part of Jerusalem, or even any Jewish presence in Jerusalem.
Jerusalem should, according to moderate Palestinians, be Kike-free.
Fatah, of course, is the moderate faction of the PLO, chaired by moderate Mahmoud Abbas, and the party to which moderate negotiator Saeb Erekat belongs.
The moderate Palestinian position is that there will be NO NEGOTIATION with Israel, NO RECOGNITION of Israel, and that the armed struggle against Israel will continue INDEFINITELY.
This is the MODERATE position. We know it is moderate because the quartet supports the PLO.
The quartet consists of the USA, Russia, the Europeans, and the United Nations. Who all favour a peaceable solution, and support moderate points of view. They are balanced. They have perspective. They represent the sincerity, resolve, and goodwill of the international community.
They understand moderation.
Other moderate elements of the moderate Palestinian position are that all Arab murderers in Israeli jails should be feed, imports of cement, missiles, lead, and nitrocellulose into Gaza should be unimpeded, and that Israel must withdraw from all strategically important areas.
Oh, and they also seek rapprochement with Iran. Also moderate.
You can find more about all of it here:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/talking/71_noes.html
The results of the Fatah conference in Bethlehem will be enthusiastically endorsed by many leading American and European politicians. Because Fatah are moderates, unlike Hamas.
We're all in agreement that Hamas is not moderate, right?
After all, Hamas still holds to the depressingly antiquated dicta of the Khartoum conference: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel.
How absurd!
Resettling Palestinians
Found an interesting article on the site of MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute).
http://memri.org/
It is an editorial by an Arab intellectual, who argues that Palestinians should be resettled in the countries in which they live (where almost all of them were born), and that the sooner the Arab world ceases the angry rhetoric and faces up to reality, the better.
Israel will not go away, and fanning the flames of anti-Semitism and extremism in miserable refugee camps will not better the lot of the average "Palestinian".
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP248309
Objecting to Refugee Resettlement Is Objecting to Peace
"Objecting to resettlement is no different than objecting to peace. It is nothing but an unrealistic slogan. The Arabs have agreed to peace, although they realize that there cannot be peace without resettlement. But they disregard this fact, viewing the refugee issue as a point of controversy, when it is a central and key issue in the peace process."
---
"Arabs who object to the resettlement plan contend that they are motivated by their zealous devotion to the Right of Return. But they have not lifted a finger to keep this right alive in the consciousness of the Palestinian 'detainees' in the camps of abasement. As a result, this spurious devotion has evoked the opposite reaction: a Palestinian now hopes to emigrate to America, Europe, Canada, or Australia in order to escape the hell of the Palestinian refugee camps, which have played a part in killing his will to live. "
---
"It follows that resettlement is underway, despite slogans promoting the Right of Return that have become an part of the speeches of these countries' politicians.
---
"[The host countries] must open up the refugee camps, which are not fit for human [habitation]. ... (and) make it possible for Palestinians to work... "
---
"Opposition to resettlement is specious; it is tantamount to the slow murder of the Palestinians…"
---
From a subsequent article, quoted on the some page:
"These countries must stop treating the Palestinians like a plague, using slogans which, as we all know, have become nothing but empty utterances in a loathsome struggle. We must break the isolation of the Palestinians in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. A Palestinian should be made to feel like a welcome and dear guest – before some external intervention comes along and grants him the right to live in dignity, to everyone's consternation. "
---
This is something that deserves to be disseminated widely.
There are so many Palestinians who already live in the United States, have built a future here, send their children to school here, and have become citizens.
I would like to ask: why are we (the US) doing more for the Palestinians than their own people? Why can a 'Palestinian' organize and demonstrate on the streets of San Francisco, in complete safety and freedom, when doing so in Lebanon or Jordan would get them shot?
Why do Arabs hate Palestinians?
http://memri.org/
It is an editorial by an Arab intellectual, who argues that Palestinians should be resettled in the countries in which they live (where almost all of them were born), and that the sooner the Arab world ceases the angry rhetoric and faces up to reality, the better.
Israel will not go away, and fanning the flames of anti-Semitism and extremism in miserable refugee camps will not better the lot of the average "Palestinian".
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP248309
Objecting to Refugee Resettlement Is Objecting to Peace
"Objecting to resettlement is no different than objecting to peace. It is nothing but an unrealistic slogan. The Arabs have agreed to peace, although they realize that there cannot be peace without resettlement. But they disregard this fact, viewing the refugee issue as a point of controversy, when it is a central and key issue in the peace process."
---
"Arabs who object to the resettlement plan contend that they are motivated by their zealous devotion to the Right of Return. But they have not lifted a finger to keep this right alive in the consciousness of the Palestinian 'detainees' in the camps of abasement. As a result, this spurious devotion has evoked the opposite reaction: a Palestinian now hopes to emigrate to America, Europe, Canada, or Australia in order to escape the hell of the Palestinian refugee camps, which have played a part in killing his will to live. "
---
"It follows that resettlement is underway, despite slogans promoting the Right of Return that have become an part of the speeches of these countries' politicians.
---
"[The host countries] must open up the refugee camps, which are not fit for human [habitation]. ... (and) make it possible for Palestinians to work... "
---
"Opposition to resettlement is specious; it is tantamount to the slow murder of the Palestinians…"
---
From a subsequent article, quoted on the some page:
"These countries must stop treating the Palestinians like a plague, using slogans which, as we all know, have become nothing but empty utterances in a loathsome struggle. We must break the isolation of the Palestinians in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. A Palestinian should be made to feel like a welcome and dear guest – before some external intervention comes along and grants him the right to live in dignity, to everyone's consternation. "
---
This is something that deserves to be disseminated widely.
There are so many Palestinians who already live in the United States, have built a future here, send their children to school here, and have become citizens.
I would like to ask: why are we (the US) doing more for the Palestinians than their own people? Why can a 'Palestinian' organize and demonstrate on the streets of San Francisco, in complete safety and freedom, when doing so in Lebanon or Jordan would get them shot?
Why do Arabs hate Palestinians?
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Advisor to President Obama legitimizes terrorism
Us government functionary John Brennan appears to believe that political parties can validly engage in murder, kidnapping, and violence, if what he wrote is to be believed.
CITE:
"It would not be foolhardy, however, for the United States to tolerate, and even to encourage, greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon's political system, a process that is subject to Iranian influence. Hezbollah is already represented in the Lebanese parliament and its members have previously served in the
Lebanese cabinet, reflections of Hezbollah's interest in shaping Lebanon's political future from within government institutions. This political involvement is a far cry from Hezbollah's genesis as solely a terrorist organization dedicated to murder, kidnapping, and violence.
He qualifies that assertion by adding: "Not coincidentally, the evolution of Hezballah into a fully vested player in the Lebanese political system has been accompanied by a marked reduction in terrorist attacks carried out by the organization. The best hope for maintaining this trend and for reducing the influence of violent extremists within the organization—as well as the influence of extremist Iranian officials who view Hezbollah primarily as a pawn of Tehran—is to increase Hezbollah’s stake in Lebanon’s struggling democratic processes"
SOURCE:
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/08/obama-administration-says-hooray-for.html
It is a remarkable statement. Not least because it escaped John Brennan's attention that political organizations which are already fully players in the Lebanese political system, such as Syria and Iran, still actively engage in murder, kidnapping, and violence. Their stake-increase, both in their own countries as well as their pawn Lebanon, has not been marked by advances in responsible behaviour, normal discourse, or civilized ideas.
Far otherwise - they have elliminated competition in those fields.
Instead of yielding any desirable improvement, it is likely that an increased role in Lebanon's internal politics by Hizbullah would result in a concomitant decrease in the influence of parties that do not engage in murder, kidnapping, and violence.
Has there in fact been a return to peaceable politics in the Southern Lebanese areas "pacified" Hizbullah? Is Southern Lebanon today a model of good administration, and flourishing co-existence among various communities all united in a civil society that brings benefit to all its members?
Or have those Hizbullah areas actually become territories where there is no option for alternative voices, where brutality reigns, and dissent is quashed?
Hizbullah has long been a player in Lebanon. Other 'parties' now fear it more than they ever feared Israel or the PLO. No one seriously dares oppose it, at least not without a militia to protect them. And, sadly, the militias that used to protect the Sunnis and Christians in Southern Lebanon have been exterminated. By Hizbullah.
"Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early ’80s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization. "
http://csis.org/event/john-brennan-assistant-president-homeland-security-and-counterterrorism
This, per mister Brennan, is a desirable development. Just as desirable no doubt as Mafia involvement in Italian politics or Chicago has been.
CITE:
"It would not be foolhardy, however, for the United States to tolerate, and even to encourage, greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon's political system, a process that is subject to Iranian influence. Hezbollah is already represented in the Lebanese parliament and its members have previously served in the
Lebanese cabinet, reflections of Hezbollah's interest in shaping Lebanon's political future from within government institutions. This political involvement is a far cry from Hezbollah's genesis as solely a terrorist organization dedicated to murder, kidnapping, and violence.
He qualifies that assertion by adding: "Not coincidentally, the evolution of Hezballah into a fully vested player in the Lebanese political system has been accompanied by a marked reduction in terrorist attacks carried out by the organization. The best hope for maintaining this trend and for reducing the influence of violent extremists within the organization—as well as the influence of extremist Iranian officials who view Hezbollah primarily as a pawn of Tehran—is to increase Hezbollah’s stake in Lebanon’s struggling democratic processes"
SOURCE:
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/08/obama-administration-says-hooray-for.html
It is a remarkable statement. Not least because it escaped John Brennan's attention that political organizations which are already fully players in the Lebanese political system, such as Syria and Iran, still actively engage in murder, kidnapping, and violence. Their stake-increase, both in their own countries as well as their pawn Lebanon, has not been marked by advances in responsible behaviour, normal discourse, or civilized ideas.
Far otherwise - they have elliminated competition in those fields.
Instead of yielding any desirable improvement, it is likely that an increased role in Lebanon's internal politics by Hizbullah would result in a concomitant decrease in the influence of parties that do not engage in murder, kidnapping, and violence.
Has there in fact been a return to peaceable politics in the Southern Lebanese areas "pacified" Hizbullah? Is Southern Lebanon today a model of good administration, and flourishing co-existence among various communities all united in a civil society that brings benefit to all its members?
Or have those Hizbullah areas actually become territories where there is no option for alternative voices, where brutality reigns, and dissent is quashed?
Hizbullah has long been a player in Lebanon. Other 'parties' now fear it more than they ever feared Israel or the PLO. No one seriously dares oppose it, at least not without a militia to protect them. And, sadly, the militias that used to protect the Sunnis and Christians in Southern Lebanon have been exterminated. By Hizbullah.
"Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early ’80s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization. "
http://csis.org/event/john-brennan-assistant-president-homeland-security-and-counterterrorism
This, per mister Brennan, is a desirable development. Just as desirable no doubt as Mafia involvement in Italian politics or Chicago has been.
Action Alert! San Jose Monday August 17
Action Alert: Stand with us. Stand for Peace . Stand with Israel
Counter Anti-Israel protest
Monday August 17
Time: 5:00pm to 6:00pm
Where: corner of Market & San Carlos Streets
south end of Cesar Chavez Park (near Convention Center LightRail Station)
Downtown San Jose, CA
For months, a group of anti-Israel protestors have gathered in downtown San Jose during Monday commute, calling for the destruction of the state of Israel. They have been unopposed until now. South Bay Voice for Israel has been standing up for Israel and standing up for truth against South Bay Mobilization for the last two weeks . We are clearly having an effect. Our past rallies have
been met with great response from the public and with increasing dismay from the haters. More and more people are coming out to stand with us. It is
imperative we keep the pressure on and not let SBM's demonization of Israel go unchallenged.
South Bay Voice for Israel will stand up for Israel’s right to exist and to live in peace and security. We remind San Jose that “Resistance” is not “Peace.”
If you can, please bring US and Israeli flags. Signs or graphics offensive to
any racial or ethnic group including but not limited to Arabs, Islam, or Palestinians will not be allowed.
Please join us Monday August 17 from 5-6 in San Jose, corner of Market & San Carlos Streets.
Counter Anti-Israel protest
Monday August 17
Time: 5:00pm to 6:00pm
Where: corner of Market & San Carlos Streets
south end of Cesar Chavez Park (near Convention Center LightRail Station)
Downtown San Jose, CA
For months, a group of anti-Israel protestors have gathered in downtown San Jose during Monday commute, calling for the destruction of the state of Israel. They have been unopposed until now. South Bay Voice for Israel has been standing up for Israel and standing up for truth against South Bay Mobilization for the last two weeks . We are clearly having an effect. Our past rallies have
been met with great response from the public and with increasing dismay from the haters. More and more people are coming out to stand with us. It is
imperative we keep the pressure on and not let SBM's demonization of Israel go unchallenged.
South Bay Voice for Israel will stand up for Israel’s right to exist and to live in peace and security. We remind San Jose that “Resistance” is not “Peace.”
If you can, please bring US and Israeli flags. Signs or graphics offensive to
any racial or ethnic group including but not limited to Arabs, Islam, or Palestinians will not be allowed.
Please join us Monday August 17 from 5-6 in San Jose, corner of Market & San Carlos Streets.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Sons of murdered Yemeni Jew make aliyah
Is this heartwarming or sad?
From JTA:
Sons of murdered Yemeni Jew make aliyah
August 12, 2009
JERUSALEM (JTA) -- The sons of a Jewish man killed last year in Yemen have left the country for Israel, a Yemen news agency reported.
The sons of Moshe Yaish al-Nahari left Yemen on Tuesday, according to Yemen News, quoting the murdered man's brother, who serves as the chief rabbi of the district of Ridah. Naharis daughters made aliyah in December. His parents, wife, four brothers and a sister remain in Yemen.
Nahari was gunned down in December by a man who said that Yemen Jews should convert or be killed.
Harassment and threats against Jews in Yemen have increased, according to the report. About 400 Jews remain in the country.
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/08/12/1007198/sons-of-murdered-yemeni-jew-make-aliyah#When:13:24:00Z
[Minor complaint: "Naharis daughters made aliyah..." - where is the apostrophe, and shouldn't that be "al-Nahari's daughters etc.? The 'al' is part of the name. ]
According to Wikipedia, over 50,000 Jews emigrated to Israel between June 1949 and September 1950 in Operation Magic Carpet, due to pogroms, riots, and persecution. There had been emigrations before then, but durin Magic Carpet the vast majority of the Jews that had remained in Yemen departed.
Is a remnant consisting of only four hundred people enough to sustain a viable community? Perhaps not. Perhaps now it is time for them to come home to Israel.
From JTA:
Sons of murdered Yemeni Jew make aliyah
August 12, 2009
JERUSALEM (JTA) -- The sons of a Jewish man killed last year in Yemen have left the country for Israel, a Yemen news agency reported.
The sons of Moshe Yaish al-Nahari left Yemen on Tuesday, according to Yemen News, quoting the murdered man's brother, who serves as the chief rabbi of the district of Ridah. Naharis daughters made aliyah in December. His parents, wife, four brothers and a sister remain in Yemen.
Nahari was gunned down in December by a man who said that Yemen Jews should convert or be killed.
Harassment and threats against Jews in Yemen have increased, according to the report. About 400 Jews remain in the country.
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/08/12/1007198/sons-of-murdered-yemeni-jew-make-aliyah#When:13:24:00Z
[Minor complaint: "Naharis daughters made aliyah..." - where is the apostrophe, and shouldn't that be "al-Nahari's daughters etc.? The 'al' is part of the name. ]
According to Wikipedia, over 50,000 Jews emigrated to Israel between June 1949 and September 1950 in Operation Magic Carpet, due to pogroms, riots, and persecution. There had been emigrations before then, but durin Magic Carpet the vast majority of the Jews that had remained in Yemen departed.
Is a remnant consisting of only four hundred people enough to sustain a viable community? Perhaps not. Perhaps now it is time for them to come home to Israel.
Pakistanis blame Zionist for dead terrorist
Posting by Grant Patel.
------------------------
Friend and rival for the affections of panty-wearer sends e-mail most amusing.
GOOD GRIEF ALMIGHTY!
Is it the water? Is it the heat?
Too much ganja in their little pea-brains?
Inbreeding leading to ever narrower frontal lobes?
Generations of bhainchotery?
What is it with these morons?
http://www.daily.pk/baitullah-meahsud-the-end-of-a-zionist-collaborator-8194/
------ATBOTH
These are good question. Pursuant an article ("Baitullah Meahsud The end of a Zionist collaborator") underneath the link.
Assertion that Pakistan top terrorist actually Zionist stooge, not gandu Muslim pagal:
"Qari Zainuddin, an Afghan Taliban commander, rejected Baitullah Mahsud as a Mujahid based on later’s un-Islamic activities and said in the interview that Afghan Taliban has nothing to do with Baitullah Mahsud and his followers. Qari also claimed that Baitullah Mahsud had close contacts with Israeli and Indian officiual"
Also:
"Baitullah Mahsud got Benazir Bhutto assassinated for his American, Israeli and Indian masters."
Classic case of casting paranoid accusations to absolve Pakistan
The Bhutto chureil was probably assassinated by ISI. But we'll never know. No great loss, the Bhutto clan mostly corrupt landlord class bloodsucking the peasantry.
Further claiming that terrorists in Pakistan are actually Indian or Anglo-saxon mercs:
"The pictures of some terrorists killed by Pakistan Army in Swat prove that they were non-Muslim terrorists hired by the US, Britain and India to distablize and eventually break-up Pakistan"
Pictures? Probably merely victims of Pakistani army brutality conveniently placed. If one assumes that Pakistani army even Swat. Which more than actually doubtful.
Then also:
"After Pakistan Army confirmed that the arms it captured from terrorists in Swat and FATA – are American made – Washington was quick to cover its dirty game against anti-Israel Pakistanis – by saying that some of its arms given to Karzai puppet government in Kabul have reached in the hands of "Pakistani Taliban" fighing Islamabad. How convenient, eh!"
Indeed, how convenient. Probably planted in deliberate haste.
Considering precisely how many weapons floating around Paki badlands actually are American made - probably vast majority - there is no scarcity of weapons for proofs.
Do any of the weapons that the US ever provided to the Pakistan military ever even remain in the hands of said military, or do they disappear pretty damn quick into hands of tribals and nutballs?
What about money paid to Pakistani government? Which Pakistani generals and politicians can now afford comfy retirements on the broken backs of the American taxpayer. Most of them? Vast majority? Or only those who are most skilled thieves? Must be cause for resentment, what?
In conclusion, Satinder Singh, the author of the piece, has done no more than spout the usual insane Pakistani accusations. Such as is customary. In short: Pakistan is not to blame for anything, Pakistanis nicest people on earth. Jews and Americans are to be blamed for everything. And Indians.
"Israel bad, America bad, India bad - all three Zionist.
Pakistan is very nice - not Zionist."
As an afterthought, I suspect that Satinder Singh doesn't really exist. He is merely the pen name of badly paid babooji karani in Pakistani Intelligence, spouting tale per pay for the Pakistan Daily, itself scarce more than an organ subsidized by and cooperating with Pakistan government. A real Sikh would be able to use spell-check. The many errors in alleged mister Singh's piece suggest low-level education, probably in a madrassah.
So, mister Atboth, to answer, I must say yes. All of the above. It is the water, and it is the heat. There is far too much ganja in their little pea-brains. The inbreeding has narrowed their frontal lobes to slice of supermarket ham thinness. And there have been many generations of bhainchotery indeed among them.
That is, precisely and approximately, what it is with those morons.
------------------------
Friend and rival for the affections of panty-wearer sends e-mail most amusing.
GOOD GRIEF ALMIGHTY!
Is it the water? Is it the heat?
Too much ganja in their little pea-brains?
Inbreeding leading to ever narrower frontal lobes?
Generations of bhainchotery?
What is it with these morons?
http://www.daily.pk/baitullah-meahsud-the-end-of-a-zionist-collaborator-8194/
------ATBOTH
These are good question. Pursuant an article ("Baitullah Meahsud The end of a Zionist collaborator") underneath the link.
Assertion that Pakistan top terrorist actually Zionist stooge, not gandu Muslim pagal:
"Qari Zainuddin, an Afghan Taliban commander, rejected Baitullah Mahsud as a Mujahid based on later’s un-Islamic activities and said in the interview that Afghan Taliban has nothing to do with Baitullah Mahsud and his followers. Qari also claimed that Baitullah Mahsud had close contacts with Israeli and Indian officiual"
Also:
"Baitullah Mahsud got Benazir Bhutto assassinated for his American, Israeli and Indian masters."
Classic case of casting paranoid accusations to absolve Pakistan
The Bhutto chureil was probably assassinated by ISI. But we'll never know. No great loss, the Bhutto clan mostly corrupt landlord class bloodsucking the peasantry.
Further claiming that terrorists in Pakistan are actually Indian or Anglo-saxon mercs:
"The pictures of some terrorists killed by Pakistan Army in Swat prove that they were non-Muslim terrorists hired by the US, Britain and India to distablize and eventually break-up Pakistan"
Pictures? Probably merely victims of Pakistani army brutality conveniently placed. If one assumes that Pakistani army even Swat. Which more than actually doubtful.
Then also:
"After Pakistan Army confirmed that the arms it captured from terrorists in Swat and FATA – are American made – Washington was quick to cover its dirty game against anti-Israel Pakistanis – by saying that some of its arms given to Karzai puppet government in Kabul have reached in the hands of "Pakistani Taliban" fighing Islamabad. How convenient, eh!"
Indeed, how convenient. Probably planted in deliberate haste.
Considering precisely how many weapons floating around Paki badlands actually are American made - probably vast majority - there is no scarcity of weapons for proofs.
Do any of the weapons that the US ever provided to the Pakistan military ever even remain in the hands of said military, or do they disappear pretty damn quick into hands of tribals and nutballs?
What about money paid to Pakistani government? Which Pakistani generals and politicians can now afford comfy retirements on the broken backs of the American taxpayer. Most of them? Vast majority? Or only those who are most skilled thieves? Must be cause for resentment, what?
In conclusion, Satinder Singh, the author of the piece, has done no more than spout the usual insane Pakistani accusations. Such as is customary. In short: Pakistan is not to blame for anything, Pakistanis nicest people on earth. Jews and Americans are to be blamed for everything. And Indians.
"Israel bad, America bad, India bad - all three Zionist.
Pakistan is very nice - not Zionist."
As an afterthought, I suspect that Satinder Singh doesn't really exist. He is merely the pen name of badly paid babooji karani in Pakistani Intelligence, spouting tale per pay for the Pakistan Daily, itself scarce more than an organ subsidized by and cooperating with Pakistan government. A real Sikh would be able to use spell-check. The many errors in alleged mister Singh's piece suggest low-level education, probably in a madrassah.
So, mister Atboth, to answer, I must say yes. All of the above. It is the water, and it is the heat. There is far too much ganja in their little pea-brains. The inbreeding has narrowed their frontal lobes to slice of supermarket ham thinness. And there have been many generations of bhainchotery indeed among them.
That is, precisely and approximately, what it is with those morons.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
BERKELEY DAILY PLANET - HATRED'S OWN PROPAGANDA RAG
As you have no doubt figured out by now, I have a mean streak a mile wide. And while I thoroughly enjoy ripping the iridescent wings off of little puppies, torturing goblins by waving silver at them, and depriving monkeys of a valuable source of protein by de-lousing them, the cruel and vindictive thing that I probably most enjoy doing is snarking morons.
Such as Becky O'Malley - publisher of the Berkeley Daily Planet.
[Exposé of the BDP here: http://dpwatchdog.com/ ]
BERKELEY DAILY PLANET
The BDP scrabbles for survival in that narrow hell halfway twixt advertising rag and vanity publication, and, attempting to boost sales, panders shamelessly to the ignorant gut-reaction bleeding hearts and campus anti-Semites in the burg of Berkeley. Under Becky O'Malley's leadership, the Berkeley Daily Planet has established a pattern of obsessive anti-Israel invective and vitriol. Which, in Berkeley, is ideologically mainstream and reflects a comfortably middle-class weltanschauung. Par for the course, and perfectly normal. In Berkeley.
RABBINIC UNANIMITY
The reasonable reaction to the anti-Semitism of the Berkeley Daily Planet is perhaps best expressed by a letter recently sent by the East Bay Council of Rabbis.
Quote:
"Those who have voiced their opposition to the Daily Planet’s coverage are entitled to speak and be heard. It is not accurate to label everyone who has disagreed with positions expressed in the Planet as militant right-wingers. "
[End quote]
I usually think of myself as a strident left-winger, in the classic liberal mold. But with the Berkeley Daily Planet's encouragement, I shall also try to think of myself as a militant right-winger. This may prove extremely difficult - I would far rather be an 'effeminate liberal' than a 'misogynist RW bastard', to quote two terms flung into the discourse on a comment-string recently.
[This post: http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2009/08/get-those-rw-conservative-idiots-fact.html On this blog: http://dovbear.blogspot.com/ This comment string: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dovbear/1140363519463313055/ ]
The crux of the letter sent by East Bay Council of Rabbis is particularly germane:
Quote:
"At times criticism of Israeli government policies and actions has crossed over into classically anti-Semitic expression when it targets Jewishness itself as a blameworthy status—as did the Kurosh Arianpour commentary the Daily Planet printed some years back. Disseminating hate speech against any ethnic or religious group, while it may be constitutionally legal, is not acceptable when allowed to stand on its own in a community paper and given the appearance of reasonable discourse. Hate speech against any group is unacceptable; in the same vein we would expect that the Planet would refrain from printing racist or homophobic material. The claim of freedom of the press does not excuse journalists from meeting the standards of civil discourse. "
[End quote]
SOURCE: http://dpwatchdog.com/dpnuts.html
What the rabbis wrote really says it all. But, in case you want to go into further details, do please feel free to browse through the articles at the Berkeley Daily Planet Watchdog (http://dpwatchdog.com/). It's much better than actually wading through the miserable prose of the BDP itself.
[Consider this delightful comment about Becky O'Malley, for instance: "it has come time for her to seriously consider converting to Judaism. It would give her license for her obsession, and it might paradoxically help dissipate some of her inner psychological turmoil." ]
And please also sign this petition:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/fight-anti-semitic-rhetoric-at-the-berkeley-daily-planet/signatures.html
FYI: The Berkeley Daily Planet's editorial offices are at:
3023A Shattuck Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94705
Phone: (510) 841-5600
Fax: (510) 841-5695
Feel free to write them a letter, using very simple words, and remember to complement them on their fearlessness. They like that.
--------------------------------------------------
Crossposted from: http://atthebackofthehill.blogspot.com/
This post: http://atthebackofthehill.blogspot.com/2009/08/berkeley-daily-planet-hatreds-own.html
--------------------------------------------------
Such as Becky O'Malley - publisher of the Berkeley Daily Planet.
[Exposé of the BDP here: http://dpwatchdog.com/ ]
BERKELEY DAILY PLANET
The BDP scrabbles for survival in that narrow hell halfway twixt advertising rag and vanity publication, and, attempting to boost sales, panders shamelessly to the ignorant gut-reaction bleeding hearts and campus anti-Semites in the burg of Berkeley. Under Becky O'Malley's leadership, the Berkeley Daily Planet has established a pattern of obsessive anti-Israel invective and vitriol. Which, in Berkeley, is ideologically mainstream and reflects a comfortably middle-class weltanschauung. Par for the course, and perfectly normal. In Berkeley.
RABBINIC UNANIMITY
The reasonable reaction to the anti-Semitism of the Berkeley Daily Planet is perhaps best expressed by a letter recently sent by the East Bay Council of Rabbis.
Quote:
"Those who have voiced their opposition to the Daily Planet’s coverage are entitled to speak and be heard. It is not accurate to label everyone who has disagreed with positions expressed in the Planet as militant right-wingers. "
[End quote]
I usually think of myself as a strident left-winger, in the classic liberal mold. But with the Berkeley Daily Planet's encouragement, I shall also try to think of myself as a militant right-winger. This may prove extremely difficult - I would far rather be an 'effeminate liberal' than a 'misogynist RW bastard', to quote two terms flung into the discourse on a comment-string recently.
[This post: http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2009/08/get-those-rw-conservative-idiots-fact.html On this blog: http://dovbear.blogspot.com/ This comment string: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dovbear/1140363519463313055/ ]
The crux of the letter sent by East Bay Council of Rabbis is particularly germane:
Quote:
"At times criticism of Israeli government policies and actions has crossed over into classically anti-Semitic expression when it targets Jewishness itself as a blameworthy status—as did the Kurosh Arianpour commentary the Daily Planet printed some years back. Disseminating hate speech against any ethnic or religious group, while it may be constitutionally legal, is not acceptable when allowed to stand on its own in a community paper and given the appearance of reasonable discourse. Hate speech against any group is unacceptable; in the same vein we would expect that the Planet would refrain from printing racist or homophobic material. The claim of freedom of the press does not excuse journalists from meeting the standards of civil discourse. "
[End quote]
SOURCE: http://dpwatchdog.com/dpnuts.html
What the rabbis wrote really says it all. But, in case you want to go into further details, do please feel free to browse through the articles at the Berkeley Daily Planet Watchdog (http://dpwatchdog.com/). It's much better than actually wading through the miserable prose of the BDP itself.
[Consider this delightful comment about Becky O'Malley, for instance: "it has come time for her to seriously consider converting to Judaism. It would give her license for her obsession, and it might paradoxically help dissipate some of her inner psychological turmoil." ]
And please also sign this petition:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/fight-anti-semitic-rhetoric-at-the-berkeley-daily-planet/signatures.html
FYI: The Berkeley Daily Planet's editorial offices are at:
3023A Shattuck Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94705
Phone: (510) 841-5600
Fax: (510) 841-5695
Feel free to write them a letter, using very simple words, and remember to complement them on their fearlessness. They like that.
--------------------------------------------------
Crossposted from: http://atthebackofthehill.blogspot.com/
This post: http://atthebackofthehill.blogspot.com/2009/08/berkeley-daily-planet-hatreds-own.html
--------------------------------------------------
Monday, August 10, 2009
Answering Steffy
Hi Steff, what being a writer here entails, according to Atboth, who seems to know Chaim ben David, is writing pro-Israel pieces now and then, or warehousing links to interesting articles here with a note of explaination about them.
And ranting. Ranting is good. Generally speaking, not so much new and brilliant writing, as a useful resource, an opportunity to vent, and a library for future reference, plus a link-dump.
And ranting. Ranting is good. Generally speaking, not so much new and brilliant writing, as a useful resource, an opportunity to vent, and a library for future reference, plus a link-dump.
British media bias
One of the key facts left out of most British news articles about the Palestinian families evicted from the houses in the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood is that they were very much arrears on their rent.
Like many countries, the rights of renters are safeguarded to a large extent in Israel - as long as they maintained payment of rent, eviction would not have happened. Twenty eight families continue to pay rent - the Ghawi and Hanun families, however, didn't do so.
This seems like a germane detail.
Not to the British press.
The legal battle to reclaim the property, which had been seized by the Jordanian government, took years. This, too, seems a pertinent detail.
Not to the British press.
The Guardian described the evictions as "the ugly face of ethnic cleansing".
The Guardian, of course, represents the worst of le journaille-jaune.
I suspect that if the Guardian were to write about the American revolution, they would paint the rebels as fascists repressing the legitimate rights of upstanding British citizens, and the redcoats as gentlemen fighting against the forces of barbarism and chaos.
Oh wait. That is precisely how the Brits describe the American revolution. Never mind.
================================================
Opportunistically crossposted from my own blog here:
http://prolongedfeline.blogspot.com/2009/08/british-media-bias.html
Cross-posting is good. It benefits both sides. Yes?
Like many countries, the rights of renters are safeguarded to a large extent in Israel - as long as they maintained payment of rent, eviction would not have happened. Twenty eight families continue to pay rent - the Ghawi and Hanun families, however, didn't do so.
This seems like a germane detail.
Not to the British press.
The legal battle to reclaim the property, which had been seized by the Jordanian government, took years. This, too, seems a pertinent detail.
Not to the British press.
The Guardian described the evictions as "the ugly face of ethnic cleansing".
The Guardian, of course, represents the worst of le journaille-jaune.
I suspect that if the Guardian were to write about the American revolution, they would paint the rebels as fascists repressing the legitimate rights of upstanding British citizens, and the redcoats as gentlemen fighting against the forces of barbarism and chaos.
Oh wait. That is precisely how the Brits describe the American revolution. Never mind.
================================================
Opportunistically crossposted from my own blog here:
http://prolongedfeline.blogspot.com/2009/08/british-media-bias.html
Cross-posting is good. It benefits both sides. Yes?
Looks like I'm the first
At least I think I am. You did send the invitation to others, didn't you?
I'm a bit confused by your sending it to me, though. I'm flattered, but I don't know very much about the Israel situation.
What does being a member of this blog entail?
I'm a bit confused by your sending it to me, though. I'm flattered, but I don't know very much about the Israel situation.
What does being a member of this blog entail?
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers
The purpose of this blog is to provide a forum for several Bay Area bloggers who support Israel's right to exist, with secure borders, as a nation for the Jewish People in the land of their forefathers.
The ultimate borders of the state, as well as which settlements must be included (and which Arab areas may be relinquished) - these are issues that still need to be decided upon, by Israel. Whether in fact it is necessary or even desirable to have normal relations with the surrounding countries is also something that must be decided, also by Israel.
It is accepted that the Arabs have strong opinions about these matters. What is up for debate is to what extent any of their opinions should be taken into account.
I shall send invitations to a number of bloggers to join. Those who decide to take part will form a more-or-less collective leadership which will have the option of inviting other bloggers.
The ultimate borders of the state, as well as which settlements must be included (and which Arab areas may be relinquished) - these are issues that still need to be decided upon, by Israel. Whether in fact it is necessary or even desirable to have normal relations with the surrounding countries is also something that must be decided, also by Israel.
It is accepted that the Arabs have strong opinions about these matters. What is up for debate is to what extent any of their opinions should be taken into account.
I shall send invitations to a number of bloggers to join. Those who decide to take part will form a more-or-less collective leadership which will have the option of inviting other bloggers.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
JEWS AND GENOCIDES
When it comes to genocide, Jews just aren't very good at it. That's why there are so many more "Palestinians" than there were sixty or even forty years ago.
Especially inside Israel, and in the territories.
For real expertise on genocide, try the Gentile nations.
SPLENDID EXEMPLARS OF GENOCIDAL EXCELLENCE:
The Dutch (wiped out an entire island in the Indies for business purposes, exterminated natives in South Africa, started race wars in the new world), the English (much the same as the Dutch, plus very creative in the use of euphemisms to disguise their attrocities), the French (Indochina, anyone?), the Belgians (Congo - the gold-standard for savage slaughter of uncooperative natives), Russia (multiple examples), Turkey (Arm...., Arme...., Armeni....., best not say it, could get the Turks angry again), China (anyone remember the Dzungarian Tatars? No, how about Tibet?), Indonesia (Aceh and Timor L'Este, Dayak tribes, Moluccans, Papuans, etc.), Thailand (brutal exploitation of hill tribes along with rape and sexual slavery of their women), Burma (like the Thais, only much more so), Spain (all of Latin America - examples too horrifyingly numerous to detail), Portugal (like Spain, in a more diverse spectrum of geographies).
Oh, and Germany, of course. How could I forget?
APARTHEID
Naturally, the Lebanese and Jordanian apartheid policies that still limit the freedoms of the descendants of Palestinians qualify as nearly genocidal - anything more calculated to destroy any sense of ethnic pride is hard to imagine, as well as encouraging the alleged Palestinians to go native in short order.
Economic discrimination against a despised caste is, however, extremely useful in depressing their ability to influence any political or social developments in their countries of birth - as India so abundantly still proves with her treatment of tribals, minorities, and untouchables, and Sri Lanka attempted to do with Tamils and others.
Malaysia and Indonesia, having learned from the Indian example, and from their former colonial masters (the English and the Dutch respectively), apply apartheid laws to their Chinese minorities, as well as extorting protection money ("voluntary contributions for good causes").
LOOSE ENDS
Should I also mention African genocides? Or is that just too depressing?
Darfur?
How about Egyptian poison gas used against the highlanders in Yemen when Egypt was involved in the North Yemeni Civil War in the nineteen-sixties?
Of course what the Indians and Pakistanis are doing in Kashmir should, properly speaking, also be called genocide - but polite people prefer not to think of it at all.
After all, Kashmir is beautiful, and the issue far too complex. Best simply dream of ancient Mughal gardens and a lake.
Especially inside Israel, and in the territories.
For real expertise on genocide, try the Gentile nations.
SPLENDID EXEMPLARS OF GENOCIDAL EXCELLENCE:
The Dutch (wiped out an entire island in the Indies for business purposes, exterminated natives in South Africa, started race wars in the new world), the English (much the same as the Dutch, plus very creative in the use of euphemisms to disguise their attrocities), the French (Indochina, anyone?), the Belgians (Congo - the gold-standard for savage slaughter of uncooperative natives), Russia (multiple examples), Turkey (Arm...., Arme...., Armeni....., best not say it, could get the Turks angry again), China (anyone remember the Dzungarian Tatars? No, how about Tibet?), Indonesia (Aceh and Timor L'Este, Dayak tribes, Moluccans, Papuans, etc.), Thailand (brutal exploitation of hill tribes along with rape and sexual slavery of their women), Burma (like the Thais, only much more so), Spain (all of Latin America - examples too horrifyingly numerous to detail), Portugal (like Spain, in a more diverse spectrum of geographies).
Oh, and Germany, of course. How could I forget?
APARTHEID
Naturally, the Lebanese and Jordanian apartheid policies that still limit the freedoms of the descendants of Palestinians qualify as nearly genocidal - anything more calculated to destroy any sense of ethnic pride is hard to imagine, as well as encouraging the alleged Palestinians to go native in short order.
Economic discrimination against a despised caste is, however, extremely useful in depressing their ability to influence any political or social developments in their countries of birth - as India so abundantly still proves with her treatment of tribals, minorities, and untouchables, and Sri Lanka attempted to do with Tamils and others.
Malaysia and Indonesia, having learned from the Indian example, and from their former colonial masters (the English and the Dutch respectively), apply apartheid laws to their Chinese minorities, as well as extorting protection money ("voluntary contributions for good causes").
LOOSE ENDS
Should I also mention African genocides? Or is that just too depressing?
Darfur?
How about Egyptian poison gas used against the highlanders in Yemen when Egypt was involved in the North Yemeni Civil War in the nineteen-sixties?
Of course what the Indians and Pakistanis are doing in Kashmir should, properly speaking, also be called genocide - but polite people prefer not to think of it at all.
After all, Kashmir is beautiful, and the issue far too complex. Best simply dream of ancient Mughal gardens and a lake.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
ZIONIST CLAIMS, APARTHEID, AND OTHER TROPES
Recently an anonymous reader discovered a post I wrote a back in November, in which I defended Zionists and pro-Israeli activists on the Berkeley campus. As is widely known, the campus of the University of California at Berkeley is one of the most Jew-hating environments on the planet, coddling racists and bigots flying under "cause of the day" colours.
University officials, while aware of the problem, and happy to take money from donors on both the Jewish and Arab sides of the fence, gently close their eyes and pretend that all is well.
The posting was this one:
http://atthebackofthehill.blogspot.com/2008/11/pro-palestinian-activists-attack-jews.html
It is dated 11/14/2008.
The anonymous commenter who discovered it shortly after ten o'clock yesterday evening wrote:
"I don't understand Zionists' claim to a land that was already inhabited by other people. We live in a modern era. Why should Americans support an apartheid state because it believes that religious texts have 'granted' a single people the right to establish a racially defined state to the exclusion of the residents who were living there throughout the 19th and 20th centuries when Jesiwh immigrants were being imported from Europe. While the Holocaust is a horrendous legacy, how does the Jewish state honor the memory of those who were killed by Nazi Germany by perpetrating similar acts of exclusion and oppression? I really don't understand the Zionist mentality...Also, many Jews are anti-Zionist."
I have responded to his query in the comment string, but as the tropes he trumpets are common, it may serve some useful purpose to deal with them in a new post.
I don't understand Zionists' claim to a land that was already inhabited by other people.
There were always Jews living there among the other people. The other people came in with conquerors over the centuries. Jews, however, have ALWAYS lived there. Furthermore, the Zionist purchased land - and developed the barren areas which they bought. It was the economic development of those lands that drew in even more people.
Also, the Jewish quarters of Jerusalem and Hebron, as well as other places inside the land, were ethnically cleansed by Arab mobs in the twenties and thirties - how do you justify Arabs even daring to claim those areas?
Why should Americans support an apartheid state
America does not support an Apartheid state - Israeli Arabs have the right to vote, to own property, and to participate at all levels in Israeli society. And there are Arabs in the ranks of most political parties and all ministries. There are also Arab parties in the Knesset. There are jobs and stations where having served in the IDF give you a much greater entry - Arabs are free to join the IDF. Druze Arabs and many Bedouin do serve in the military (and note that there are Knesset speakers, ministers, officers, and department heads from the Arab Israeli side). All who stayed in 1948 became citizens.
The distinction is with the population in the territories - who are not citizens, and do not wish to be citizens, of a praedominantly Jewish state. They have their own institutions, which are overwhelmingly Judenrein - this despite there having been Jewish populations in both the West Bank and Gaza (that latter population ethnically cleansed several times, the last time during the British period) which date back to the pre-Roman period. Obviously, a population which will not become citizens, and is not even desirous of that - which in fact is acknowledged by all sides as heading towards eventual statehood of its own - cannot be administered in the same way as citizens. They are administered under British Mandate codes and Ottoman law. As they were when the Jordanians ruled over them, and as they were after Egypt had seized Gaza. The laws in those areas are a confusing and oppressive welter, due to it being illegal to change them until locally valid representative bodies do so.
Apartheid state ....
Like Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Japan, Germany, and several others which have nationality laws based on racial and religious exclusionism, coupled with a large number of 'guest-workers' who are treated worse than animals?
But Israel treats its guest-workers and resident aliens far better. So, NOT like the countries just mentioned.
Do you wish to talk about Mexican dishwashers and lettuce pickers? How about Turks who have been three generations in Northern Europe, and are still "foreigners"? Chinese and Indians in Malaysia who have been there for centuries and are discriminated against?
Koreans in Japan? Indians and Pakistanis in the Gulf?
[02/20/2009: Adding Italy to the list above. Per Italian law, children born to foreigners do not automatically receive citizenship, some are left in limbo. This particularly applies to Gypsies and Eastern Europeans. ]
because it believes that religious texts have 'granted' a single people the right to establish a racially defined state to the exclusion of the residents who were living there throughout the 19th and 20th centuries when Jewish immigrants were being imported from Europe.
Zionism is not based on the Bible but on that land being the historic homeland of the Jewish people - even the Romans admitted precisely that.
As did the Arabs - in the Quran, during the various Caliphates, under the Ottomans, and even in the 1920s when the Arabs were becoming nations. Kings Abdullah (assassinated by a Palestinian in Jerusalem) and Hussein (of blessed memory) also admitted the Jewish right to the land.
Nor is the state racially defined (and 'race' in any case is no longer used as a defining term by most anthropologists). There are Jews of every "racial" stripe known to man. In what way is a glow-in-the-dark Hassid from Lithuania the same race as a Persian Jew, an Egyptian Jew, a Baghdadi, a Jew from Samarkand or Bokhara, or a Sfard from Morocco?
And exclusion? Did I already mention that those who stayed, contrary to the commands of the invading Arab armies and at the express request of Jewish leaders in 1948, were automatically granted citizenship? If I didn't mention it yet, I apologize - I should have.
And speaking of 'exclusion', I should also mention that since 1948 the Jews were excluded in very large numbers from Islamic countries - were they had lived since before Islam, in many cases, and in some cases before the current population settled there (that being most notably ALL the lands inhabited today by Turkic majorities, all of which were conquered by invaders from the steppes between ten and four centuries ago - Istanbul used to be Constantinople, and the Greeks still want it back).
Jewish immigrants imported from Europe? Indeed, many of the citizens of Israel have ancestors who came from there (though, of course, the ancestors of the European Jews were not from Europe - see 'Historic Homeland' mentioned above).
Over half the Jewish population however came from Arab and Muslim lands that they were kicked out of in 1948 and years since.
And do not forget, there were already Jews there when they returned to Israel. Many of whom had never been elsewhere - the territory 'assigned' to them by the United Nations was the area of Jewish majority, not the total area where there were Jews. Those who were thrown out of the Arab countries were robbed by the Arabs before they left, and arrived with nothing. As the US Congress in fact recognizes. Note also that these exiles were absorbed by their kin - precisely as the Arabs have refused to absorb their own brothers who fled.
to the exclusion of the residents who were living there throughout the 19th and 20th centuries
The Jewish return to the land was already happening in small measure long before Zionism - Jews returned to Jerusalem, Hebron, Tzfat, and Gaza throughout Ottoman times, and there were Jews who already lived there.
For eight decades till 1948, Jewish population there increased more markedly than under the Caliphate.
Since 1948, it has been the Jewish state - but all in all, Jews have been a majority in their land now for several generations, since before independence. Many were born there, their parents were born there. And many even have grandparents, great grandparents, and even further kin who were born there. They live there now, and most have not lived anywhere else.
If being born in the US makes you an American, or a citizen of many other countries, then by that same reason the Jews in Israel are validly of Israel, and the "Palestinians" born in Nahr El Bard or Jordan are Lebanese and Jordanian.
Oh wait, Arabs practice an exclusionism even more bitter than Europeans and Malays. They discriminate against their own family.
While the Holocaust is a horrendous legacy, how does the Jewish state honor the memory of those who were killed by Nazi Germany by perpetrating similar acts of exclusion and oppression?
The comparison is obscene. After 1967, the Arab population in the territories more than tripled. Even in Gaza since the intifada, there has been a forty percent increase in the population, as per a news item on the BBC website which quotes UN figures. There are more Palestinians now than ever before. They have thrived most marvelously since 1948.
There are no death camps. There are no gas chambers. There are no torture rooms. The Arabs in the West Bank largely have their own officials to blame for the mess they are in (corruption nurtured and encouraged by the UN), and the Arabs in Gaza can thank Hamas (whose nickname, by the way, is SHIA - in snarky acknowledgement of the Iranian contribution) for their situation.
I really don't understand the Zionist mentality
That may be due to ignorance. Give it another shot.
Also, many Jews are anti-Zionist
That also may be due to ignorance. Provided we give them the benefit of doubt.
But more because they desperately wish to be unobjectionable to all, in every possible way. Blending in is a powerful motivator for Uncle-Tomism.
As is profound self-hatred.
[02/20/2009: I actually thought of refering to the anti-Zionist Jews as Kapos-in-training, but the situation is more complex than that. As "A" points out, "The whole issue of Jewish anti-Zionism is much more complex and should be treated in better detail and with less acrimony toward non-Jews.
Ultraorthodox Jews (Neturei Karte) did not want Zionism to usurp the traditional rabbinic leadership of the Jews.
Assimilationist Jews were/are afraid that Zionism will cast doubt on their loyalty to their current state.
Both Marxist and Assimilationist Jews believed that "progress" in a liberal or communist society would allow them to integrate and be part of larger society. In Germany and USSR, this proved to be an illusion.".]
By the same token, many pro-Palestinian activists assert that they are not anti-Semites because their 'best friends' are Jewish (in other words, strictly anti-Zionist Jews). A more common tendency among them is to avoid Jews who they feel are too "Jewish", especially as regards the Israel and Palestine issues.
And, of course, there are still convinced anti-Semites in their ranks.
Not wishing to associate with a taboo minority is also a powerful motivator, as is profound subconscious hatred.
Any questions sofar? There will be a test.
APARTHEID
Now, I find it interesting that the word 'apartheid' is so often used by the anti-Israel crowd. Interesting, because it does not mean what they intend it to mean, nor what they wish to think it means.
Apartheid is a Dutch word that strictly speaking means 'separateness', and in the South African context referred to a legal separation within the same country into ethnic classes (based, in fact, on old Dutch-Roman law and the feudal concept of Romans, nobles, freemen, and serfs) - something which in so varied and diverse a country as Israel is patently absurd.
The West Bank, of course, is different; the Arabs wish their eventual state to be as Judenrein as possible, and have made abundantly clear that they wish Jews to keep out, but do not object to dogs or Persians.
As my regular readers know, I speak, read, and write Dutch fluently. I also understand a number of Dutch dialects, including Afrikaans. Do not presume to lecture me on what 'apartheid' means. Do not even think of doing so. It is a word in my language, not yours - you have merely hijacked it, and 'colonized' it - precisely like the Arabs did to the Christian lands in North Africa, the Levant, and Iberia, exactly like Muslims did to Asia Minor, Western India, Central Asia, and parts of Indonesia. If you use that word, you betray your ignorance, and your linguistic carpetbaggery.
Plus, in this case, you devalue that word to the point of irrelevance.
As you are also doing by comparing the fairly minor Gaza war to the full-scale extermination of six million people over a five year period.
University officials, while aware of the problem, and happy to take money from donors on both the Jewish and Arab sides of the fence, gently close their eyes and pretend that all is well.
The posting was this one:
http://atthebackofthehill.blogspot.com/2008/11/pro-palestinian-activists-attack-jews.html
It is dated 11/14/2008.
The anonymous commenter who discovered it shortly after ten o'clock yesterday evening wrote:
"I don't understand Zionists' claim to a land that was already inhabited by other people. We live in a modern era. Why should Americans support an apartheid state because it believes that religious texts have 'granted' a single people the right to establish a racially defined state to the exclusion of the residents who were living there throughout the 19th and 20th centuries when Jesiwh immigrants were being imported from Europe. While the Holocaust is a horrendous legacy, how does the Jewish state honor the memory of those who were killed by Nazi Germany by perpetrating similar acts of exclusion and oppression? I really don't understand the Zionist mentality...Also, many Jews are anti-Zionist."
I have responded to his query in the comment string, but as the tropes he trumpets are common, it may serve some useful purpose to deal with them in a new post.
I don't understand Zionists' claim to a land that was already inhabited by other people.
There were always Jews living there among the other people. The other people came in with conquerors over the centuries. Jews, however, have ALWAYS lived there. Furthermore, the Zionist purchased land - and developed the barren areas which they bought. It was the economic development of those lands that drew in even more people.
Also, the Jewish quarters of Jerusalem and Hebron, as well as other places inside the land, were ethnically cleansed by Arab mobs in the twenties and thirties - how do you justify Arabs even daring to claim those areas?
Why should Americans support an apartheid state
America does not support an Apartheid state - Israeli Arabs have the right to vote, to own property, and to participate at all levels in Israeli society. And there are Arabs in the ranks of most political parties and all ministries. There are also Arab parties in the Knesset. There are jobs and stations where having served in the IDF give you a much greater entry - Arabs are free to join the IDF. Druze Arabs and many Bedouin do serve in the military (and note that there are Knesset speakers, ministers, officers, and department heads from the Arab Israeli side). All who stayed in 1948 became citizens.
The distinction is with the population in the territories - who are not citizens, and do not wish to be citizens, of a praedominantly Jewish state. They have their own institutions, which are overwhelmingly Judenrein - this despite there having been Jewish populations in both the West Bank and Gaza (that latter population ethnically cleansed several times, the last time during the British period) which date back to the pre-Roman period. Obviously, a population which will not become citizens, and is not even desirous of that - which in fact is acknowledged by all sides as heading towards eventual statehood of its own - cannot be administered in the same way as citizens. They are administered under British Mandate codes and Ottoman law. As they were when the Jordanians ruled over them, and as they were after Egypt had seized Gaza. The laws in those areas are a confusing and oppressive welter, due to it being illegal to change them until locally valid representative bodies do so.
Apartheid state ....
Like Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Japan, Germany, and several others which have nationality laws based on racial and religious exclusionism, coupled with a large number of 'guest-workers' who are treated worse than animals?
But Israel treats its guest-workers and resident aliens far better. So, NOT like the countries just mentioned.
Do you wish to talk about Mexican dishwashers and lettuce pickers? How about Turks who have been three generations in Northern Europe, and are still "foreigners"? Chinese and Indians in Malaysia who have been there for centuries and are discriminated against?
Koreans in Japan? Indians and Pakistanis in the Gulf?
[02/20/2009: Adding Italy to the list above. Per Italian law, children born to foreigners do not automatically receive citizenship, some are left in limbo. This particularly applies to Gypsies and Eastern Europeans. ]
because it believes that religious texts have 'granted' a single people the right to establish a racially defined state to the exclusion of the residents who were living there throughout the 19th and 20th centuries when Jewish immigrants were being imported from Europe.
Zionism is not based on the Bible but on that land being the historic homeland of the Jewish people - even the Romans admitted precisely that.
As did the Arabs - in the Quran, during the various Caliphates, under the Ottomans, and even in the 1920s when the Arabs were becoming nations. Kings Abdullah (assassinated by a Palestinian in Jerusalem) and Hussein (of blessed memory) also admitted the Jewish right to the land.
Nor is the state racially defined (and 'race' in any case is no longer used as a defining term by most anthropologists). There are Jews of every "racial" stripe known to man. In what way is a glow-in-the-dark Hassid from Lithuania the same race as a Persian Jew, an Egyptian Jew, a Baghdadi, a Jew from Samarkand or Bokhara, or a Sfard from Morocco?
And exclusion? Did I already mention that those who stayed, contrary to the commands of the invading Arab armies and at the express request of Jewish leaders in 1948, were automatically granted citizenship? If I didn't mention it yet, I apologize - I should have.
And speaking of 'exclusion', I should also mention that since 1948 the Jews were excluded in very large numbers from Islamic countries - were they had lived since before Islam, in many cases, and in some cases before the current population settled there (that being most notably ALL the lands inhabited today by Turkic majorities, all of which were conquered by invaders from the steppes between ten and four centuries ago - Istanbul used to be Constantinople, and the Greeks still want it back).
Jewish immigrants imported from Europe? Indeed, many of the citizens of Israel have ancestors who came from there (though, of course, the ancestors of the European Jews were not from Europe - see 'Historic Homeland' mentioned above).
Over half the Jewish population however came from Arab and Muslim lands that they were kicked out of in 1948 and years since.
And do not forget, there were already Jews there when they returned to Israel. Many of whom had never been elsewhere - the territory 'assigned' to them by the United Nations was the area of Jewish majority, not the total area where there were Jews. Those who were thrown out of the Arab countries were robbed by the Arabs before they left, and arrived with nothing. As the US Congress in fact recognizes. Note also that these exiles were absorbed by their kin - precisely as the Arabs have refused to absorb their own brothers who fled.
to the exclusion of the residents who were living there throughout the 19th and 20th centuries
The Jewish return to the land was already happening in small measure long before Zionism - Jews returned to Jerusalem, Hebron, Tzfat, and Gaza throughout Ottoman times, and there were Jews who already lived there.
For eight decades till 1948, Jewish population there increased more markedly than under the Caliphate.
Since 1948, it has been the Jewish state - but all in all, Jews have been a majority in their land now for several generations, since before independence. Many were born there, their parents were born there. And many even have grandparents, great grandparents, and even further kin who were born there. They live there now, and most have not lived anywhere else.
If being born in the US makes you an American, or a citizen of many other countries, then by that same reason the Jews in Israel are validly of Israel, and the "Palestinians" born in Nahr El Bard or Jordan are Lebanese and Jordanian.
Oh wait, Arabs practice an exclusionism even more bitter than Europeans and Malays. They discriminate against their own family.
While the Holocaust is a horrendous legacy, how does the Jewish state honor the memory of those who were killed by Nazi Germany by perpetrating similar acts of exclusion and oppression?
The comparison is obscene. After 1967, the Arab population in the territories more than tripled. Even in Gaza since the intifada, there has been a forty percent increase in the population, as per a news item on the BBC website which quotes UN figures. There are more Palestinians now than ever before. They have thrived most marvelously since 1948.
There are no death camps. There are no gas chambers. There are no torture rooms. The Arabs in the West Bank largely have their own officials to blame for the mess they are in (corruption nurtured and encouraged by the UN), and the Arabs in Gaza can thank Hamas (whose nickname, by the way, is SHIA - in snarky acknowledgement of the Iranian contribution) for their situation.
I really don't understand the Zionist mentality
That may be due to ignorance. Give it another shot.
Also, many Jews are anti-Zionist
That also may be due to ignorance. Provided we give them the benefit of doubt.
But more because they desperately wish to be unobjectionable to all, in every possible way. Blending in is a powerful motivator for Uncle-Tomism.
As is profound self-hatred.
[02/20/2009: I actually thought of refering to the anti-Zionist Jews as Kapos-in-training, but the situation is more complex than that. As "A" points out, "The whole issue of Jewish anti-Zionism is much more complex and should be treated in better detail and with less acrimony toward non-Jews.
Ultraorthodox Jews (Neturei Karte) did not want Zionism to usurp the traditional rabbinic leadership of the Jews.
Assimilationist Jews were/are afraid that Zionism will cast doubt on their loyalty to their current state.
Both Marxist and Assimilationist Jews believed that "progress" in a liberal or communist society would allow them to integrate and be part of larger society. In Germany and USSR, this proved to be an illusion.".]
By the same token, many pro-Palestinian activists assert that they are not anti-Semites because their 'best friends' are Jewish (in other words, strictly anti-Zionist Jews). A more common tendency among them is to avoid Jews who they feel are too "Jewish", especially as regards the Israel and Palestine issues.
And, of course, there are still convinced anti-Semites in their ranks.
Not wishing to associate with a taboo minority is also a powerful motivator, as is profound subconscious hatred.
Any questions sofar? There will be a test.
APARTHEID
Now, I find it interesting that the word 'apartheid' is so often used by the anti-Israel crowd. Interesting, because it does not mean what they intend it to mean, nor what they wish to think it means.
Apartheid is a Dutch word that strictly speaking means 'separateness', and in the South African context referred to a legal separation within the same country into ethnic classes (based, in fact, on old Dutch-Roman law and the feudal concept of Romans, nobles, freemen, and serfs) - something which in so varied and diverse a country as Israel is patently absurd.
The West Bank, of course, is different; the Arabs wish their eventual state to be as Judenrein as possible, and have made abundantly clear that they wish Jews to keep out, but do not object to dogs or Persians.
As my regular readers know, I speak, read, and write Dutch fluently. I also understand a number of Dutch dialects, including Afrikaans. Do not presume to lecture me on what 'apartheid' means. Do not even think of doing so. It is a word in my language, not yours - you have merely hijacked it, and 'colonized' it - precisely like the Arabs did to the Christian lands in North Africa, the Levant, and Iberia, exactly like Muslims did to Asia Minor, Western India, Central Asia, and parts of Indonesia. If you use that word, you betray your ignorance, and your linguistic carpetbaggery.
Plus, in this case, you devalue that word to the point of irrelevance.
As you are also doing by comparing the fairly minor Gaza war to the full-scale extermination of six million people over a five year period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)